Sitting of 15 February 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Widows' Pensions
  Sir R. Boothby: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of approximately 50,000 persons, being widows in receipt of a pension of 10s. a week. The grievance contained in the Petition is the hardship suffered by these pensioners owing to the fall in the value of money. The Petition concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that all widows in receipt of 10s. pension have their pensions increased by Act of Parliament to be more in line with today's standard of currency and on a more equal level with widows in receipt of full pension, and respectfully pray that by Act of Parliament the qualifying age be changed to earlier than 60.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Prisoners of War
    Sir J. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Defence, in view of the treatment of prisoners of war by certain foreign Communist States, what variations of existing instructions he will issue to members of the Forces.
    The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir J. Hutchison: In considering this thorny problem, has my right hon. and learned Friend been in consultation with the United States authorities, who are, of course, presented with the same difficulty? Would he agree that a prisoner of war, in addition to what he is now entitled to
    2332
    do, should be entitled, in order to save his sanity and his life, to appear to agree to the ideological theories of his captors?
    Sir W. Monckton: We have certainly been in touch with United States' thinking on this problem. I do not think that our thinking is far apart. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it would be very dangerous for me to lay down a general rule, and I would ask my hon. Friend to read the Answer which will be circulated.
    Following is the reply:
    The rules for the treatment of prisoners of war by civilised nations are laid down in the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. In ratifying that Convention, the Soviet Government made a reservation to the effect that the U.S.S.R. would not feel bound to extend its benefits to prisoners of war convicted under the law of the detaining Power of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Similar reservations were made by other Communist States. The use that might be made of a reservation to this effect is illustrated by the Chinese contention in the Korean operations that all prisoners of war were, by the very act of having waged war against them, war criminals.
    The Government have decided that members of the Forces shall be instructed that, if taken prisoner in any future operations, they can only be required, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, to furnish to their captors their name, rank, number and date of birth. Experience has shown that any relaxation of this rule can only result in the divulgence by prisoners of war of information useful to the enemy.
    At the same time, members of the Forces will be told about conditions they may meet if taken prisoner. The aim will be to strengthen by various training and administrative methods those military qualities which support a fighting man in the stresses of combat conditions, and sustain him if he becomes a prisoner of war. But I would emphasise that the only satisfactory solution of this problem would be for all nations to observe the code of conduct towards prisoners of war embodied in the 1949 Geneva Prisoners of War Convention.

    Forces, Germany (Cost)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Defence his estimate of the additional cost in hard currency of maintaining the present strength of British forces in Germany after the German contribution ceases.
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Defence what he estimates will be the additional expenditure falling on the United Kingdom Exchequer on account of our forces in Western Germany in the financial year beginning in April, 1956.
    Sir W. Monckton: If no further support were provided by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the total additional cost in hard currency would be about £77 million. Of this, about £70 million would be an additional burden on the Exchequer. The difference is accounted for by that proportion of their pay which our troops in Germany convert into Deutschsmarks.
    The position next year will depend upon the outcome of the negotiations with the Federal Government.
    Mr. Bellenger: Will Her Majesty's Government impress on the Federal German authorities that there is some moral obligation on the Federal Government, if no exact legal obligation, to contribute to the cost of the occupation troops, at least until they can provide the troops themselves under the contract into which they have entered under the Paris Agreements?
    Sir W. Monckton: The point which the right hon. Gentleman has made is very much in the mind of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Jay: Have not the Government been extremely weak in these negotiations? At a time when direct taxation in Germany is much lower than in this country and when Germany is not yet able to defend herself, will the Government, in the interests of the United Kingdom taxpayer, really press this matter a good deal harder?
    Sir W. Monckton: We certainly intend to press this matter with all appropriate promptitude and speed.
    Mr. Peyton: In the course of these discussions with the German Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it perfectly clear that the sort of unilateral announcement made the other day is most unwelcome and does a great deal of harm to allies? The German Government are a party to the agreement and must at least go through the process of discussion.
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not want to make a pronouncement now which will make negotiations which are about to begin any more difficult.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is the first chicken, at a cost of £77 million, which
    2334
    has come home to roost as a result of the disastrous policy of German rearmament?
    Mr. Stokes: In order to clarify our minds on this subject, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the difference in cost between keeping four divisions in Germany and keeping four in England? That is very important.
    Sir W. Monckton: I should not like to try to answer that question without notice.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Defence what discussions he has had or proposes to have with the West German Government on the question of a German contribution to the cost of maintaining British troops in Germany.
    Mr. Healeyasked the Minister of Defence what financial contribution the Federal German Government will make to the cost of British Forces in Germany after 5th May this year.
    Sir W. Monckton: Preliminary discussions on the arrangements for the maintenance of N.A.T.O. forces in Germany after 5th May, 1956, took place between the Ministers concerned during the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in December, and are being pursued through the diplomatic channel. We expect the formal negotiations provided for in the Finance Convention to begin shortly in Bonn.
    Mr. Peyton: Did my right hon. and learned Friend have any advance warning from the German Government of the statement made the other day by Herr Schaeffer, the German Finance Minister?
    Sir W. Monckton: I had no notice that such a statement was to be made at that time, and in that form.
    Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is typical of the dithering incompetence of this Government that though his predecessor, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed fifteen months ago to settle this matter in negotiation with our Allies, according to his own statement the negotiations did not begin until over a year later in December, 1955, and, in fact, not until the German Government had made it clear that they were not going to pay a penny?
    Sir W. Monckton: First, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to draw the same conclusions from the history of the matter as himself. What I am anxious to impress upon him and the House is that these negotiations are likely to take place at once and that, as far as I can ensure, they will be pursued promptly.
    Mr. Stokes: Will Her Majesty's Government not fail to impress upon the German Government that they have been let off pretty lightly for having lost the war and for having caused it, and that they must realise they will have to make a substantial contribution for maintaining (he defence of the West?
    Sir W. Monckton: It will certainly be our purpose to make it plain to all people who are now members of N.A.T.O. that we hope they will make an equitable contribution to the common defence.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The German Government having adopted a bargaining position from the start, is it not up to Her Majesty's Government to do the same and to say that we expect that the German Government will provide a full contribution, as in the past, which contribution could quite properly be reduced to the extent of the cost of her increasing forces?
    Sir W. Monckton: It would be undesirable if I were to say what position we intend to take up in the negotiations that are just about to begin, but we will bear in mind all the points that have been raised.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent he estimates that there will be a reduction in our defence expenditure as a result of the re-armament of Western Germany.
    Sir W. Monckton: There will be no reduction of U.K. defence expenditure on this account.
    Mr. Hughes: But we were promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Budget that there was to be a reduction. Is this another broken pledge?
    Sir W. Monckton: All I would say is that the advent of German re-armament is a supplement to and not a substitute for the services we render.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, on the converse side of the picture, whether there will be an increase in our defence expenditure as a result of German rearmament?

    Egypt and Jordan (Officers)
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Defence how many officers serving with the Egyptian armed forces are being trained this year in the United Kingdom; and who bears the cost.
    Sir W. Monckton: One hundred and eighteen officers serving with the Egyptian armed forces will have completed training or will have joined courses in this country by the end of the year. The cost of training is borne by the Egyptian Government.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: In the changed circumstances now prevailing, has not the time come to revise these arrangements— for example, in addition to training these officers in the latest British weapons, could we not ask Egypt to train some British officers with the Czech or Russian weapons they now have? Let us have some measure of reciprocity.
    Sir W. Monckton: This is a longstanding connection between the two countries which it is in the interests of both the Egyptians and ourselves to keep going.
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Defence how many non-British officers serving with the armed forces of Jordan are being trained this
    year in the United Kingdom; and who bears the cost.
    Sir W. Monckton: Thirty-seven non-British officers serving with the armed forces of Jordan will have completed training or will have joined courses in this country by the end of the year. All these officers are in the Arab Legion. The cost of training is paid by the Jordan Government, which is assisted by Her Majesty's Government in meeting the cost of the Jordan forces as a whole.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Are these officers told when they arrive why they are being trained here? In view of a broadcast by King Hussein over Amman radio on 15th January last, which said that the Arab Legion was being relied on to recover lost Palestine, is there not

    2337
    some conflict of purpose between the Jordan and British Governments as to what the Arab Legion is for?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not think that there is a conflict of purpose. There is a close treaty relationship with Jordan, as the House is aware, but there is no lack of reciprocity all round, and members of the Israeli forces are trained here, too.

    West Germany (Army)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence whether the decision of the West German Government to raise an army of 5 million men has been made known to Her Majesty's Government; and whether there was any consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation before the decision was reached.
    Sir W. Monckton: Her Majesty's Government know of no such decision by the West German Government; the second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that the legal adviser to the Bonn Government recently made a statement, which appeared in one of the American newspapers, that their intention was to raise an army of 5 million men? Does he not read the newspapers?
    Sir W. Monckton: I spend far too much time reading the newspapers. I did observe that people are made liable to be called up for military service in very large numbers if the Act were enforced for all of them, but I am sure that the German Government neither would nor could call them all up at once.

    National Service
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware that the Federal German Government are introducing military training for a period of eighteen months for their conscripted personnel; whether he has considered the psychological effect this must have among British troops serving alongside their German counterparts in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and whether he will therefore now reconsider the two-year period of National Service for British nationals.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the intentions of the Federal German Government to which the right hon. Member refers. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the period of military service adopted by the various member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should be adequate to enable them to fulfil their obligations to that organisation. It is for each member country to determine its actual period of service in the light of its own circumstances. The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards National Service remains as set out in Command Paper 9608 last October.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to understand from that reply that Germany is free to assess what should be her responsibilities as a member of N.A.T.O.? If that be the case, and she has come to the conclusion that she can provide adequate support under her treaty obligations by eighteen months' service, why does Her Majesty's Government take two years as our adequate contribution?
    Sir W. Monckton: I said that it was for each Government to assess how it could carry out its obligations in N.A.T.O. here and elsewhere. Her Majesty's Government have wide-flung responsibilities in other areas which they cannot leave out of account.
    Mr. Stokes: I know, but may I ask the Minister whether he remembers the debate on National Service? Was it not made clear then that there is no reason why we should not reduce the period of National Service now, and is he aware that there is a deep suspicion in the minds of most people that the Government are playing politics in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, look at the by-election results today—and timing the abolition of National Service to match up with the next General Election?
    Sir W. Monckton: One can only hope that the abolition of National Service will not be so long deferred, but I must make no prophecies. All I would say is that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on two years' National Service was expounded, as best I could, in the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the abolition of National Service is tied up with the abolition of the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a survey of the manpower in the three Services, with a view to including proposals for ending compulsory National Service.
    Sir W. Monckton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 8th February.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that we were led to expect that he was a conciliatory and reasonable gentleman, and is he not prepared to take a new line on this matter?
    Sir W. Monckton: Not all conciliators have to take a new line every time they are asked a question. I cannot go as far as that.
    Mr. Beswick: Are we to understand from the supplementary answer given to the previous Question that the Minister of Defence expects to abolish National Service before the next Election?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am not prepared to go as far as that.

    Balloons
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent balloons are now being used for measures connected with the defence of Britain.
    Sir W. Monckton: Tethered balloons are used for parachute training and target practice and free balloons for meteorological purposes.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that balloons are much cheaper than some of our expensive aircraft and quite as useful as a defence against rockets? Does he not think that he could reduce defence expenditure if he went in for balloons instead of obsolete aircraft?
    Sir W. Monckton: There is a limit to the use of air and wind.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not quite obvious that this Government only continues to exist on account of free balloons?

    GIBRALTAR (SPANISH RESTRICTIONS)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to Spain in view of the economic and labour difficulties of Gibraltar arising from restrictions imposed by Spain.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has on a number of occasions, and again recently, represented to the Spanish Government that Her Majesty's Government deplore the abnormal—-and in some cases discriminatory—restrictions which have lately been imposed upon intercourse between Gibraltar and Spain. He has urged the Spanish Government to remove these restrictions as harmful to the economies of Gibraltar and Spain, as well as to relations between Spain and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this has been going on for over two years? Is he not further aware that in the Madrid newspaper El Pueblo a few days ago it was stated that 5,000 Gibraltarians had left the Rock in 1955 because of the economic depression created by 'the Spanish economic blockade? Why cannot we do something about it, as we are flirting for friendship with Spain?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have no information on the latest point which the hon. Gentleman raised. I suggest that he should put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department has asked for the assistance of the American Government in making representations to Spain, which might be more effective than representations made by us?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, I think it is much better that we should handle this matter ourselves.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (EUROPEAN SERVICES)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions in 1955 the European services of the British Broadcasting

    2341
    Corporation carried talks about the proceedings, procedure and achievements of the Commonwealth of Nations, and in how many languages; and what proportion of the total number of topical talks that represents.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am informed that in 1955 the European services of the British Broadcasting Corporation carried over 3,000 talks on Commonwealth affairs. This figure represents an average of about one-eighth of the total number of talks carried on these services, and does not include incidental references.
    Mr. Maitland: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that it is most important that we should project the Commonwealth as a living and expanding reality to those countries which live on our periphery? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to encourage the B.B.C. to project the Commonwealth as a living reality?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Certainly, Sir.

    DISARMAMENT
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what point, and in what way, Her Majesty's Government's representatives made it clear that the Anglo-French disarmament proposals were put forward on the condition that world political tension was relaxed by the settlement of outstanding differences.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, I pointed out at the start of its meetings on 13th May, 1954 that
    "substantial disarmament cannot come about unless there is a real relaxation of world tension, including a settlement of the major international differences dividing the world today."
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the same point on 1st March, 1955, at the start of the second series of the meetings of the Sub-Committee. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to my statements in the House of Commons on this matter on 30th July and 6th December, 1954.
    Mr. Beswick: Would not the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the greatest
    2342
    outstanding differences has been this question of disarmament, and as the Soviet representative accepted the Anglo-French proposals, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that we do not agree with the Soviet proposal that the Anglo-French proposals should be accepted unless there is a prior settlement of all the outstanding world problems?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Anglo-French proposals were accepted by the Soviet Union, because there was no agreement upon control, and that is the essence of any disarmament agreement.
    As for the other point, I have always taken the view that if we can get agreement about disarmament, that will of itself contribute to a lessening of tension, but there will not be substantial disarmament unless we also remove the causes of tension.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that an early disarmament agreement should include an immediate acceptance by all signatory States of a prohibition of the use of all nuclear weapons except in defence against aggression, pending the total prohibition and elimination of all nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government stand by what was said in the Anglo-French memorandum of 11th June, 1954, that the States Members of the Disarmament Sub-Committee—Canada, France, United Kingdom, United States, and the Soviet Union—should regard themselves as prohibited in accordance with the terms of the United Nations Charter from the use of nuclear weapons except in defence against aggression. Her Majesty's Government consider that any disarmament treaty should include an immediate acceptance of this prohibition by all signatory States.
    Mr. Henderson: Was not the proposal accepted in principle by the Soviet Government? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore consider that there is a reasonable chance of such a proposal being embodied in a partial disarmament agreement?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not at all certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that that was accepted

    2343
    by the representative of the Soviet Union, but I see no reason why the proposal should not be included in any partial disarmament agreement.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government as part of an early disarmament agreement in regard to securing reductions in the level of armed forces and conventional armaments, subject to the establishment of an effective control organ.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 30th January, Her Majesty's Government intend to follow up the General Assembly Resolution of 16th December which instructed the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee to give priority to early agreement on and implementation of
    "all such measures of adequately safeguarded disarmament as are now feasible."
    We shall put forward our views in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, which is to meet next month.
    Mr. Henderson: Is there any reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not frankly state that Her Majesty's Government intend to propose some reductions in the levels of manpower and conventional armaments, even though they may not be able to make proposals to the same effect as they did in the Anglo-French plan?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this point. I think it is very important that the meetings of the Sub-Committee should be regarded, initially at all events, as private. It would be better that there should not be prior publication of what we are going to say there.
    Mr. Henderson: Mr. Khruschev has, at any rate, been able to make some statement in public about three or four points which would receive the support of the Soviet Government. Is there any reason why we should draw a veil of secrecy over what the British Government are proposing?
    Mr. Lloyd: We do not wish to use discussions of this sort for propaganda purposes. I think it better that we should treat the meetings as private.

    ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the conclusions of the negotiations on the Icelandic fisheries dispute.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: In order to advance matters further, talks between representatives of the British and Icelandic trawler owners were held in Paris last week under the auspices of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. These showed that both parties were anxious for landings of Icelandic-caught fish in the United Kingdom to be resumed in an orderly manner. I understand that these talks will be resumed in the near future.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As these negotiations have been going on for a long time, could the Joint Under-Secretary of State say when it is expected that they will finally come to a conclusion?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, I should not like to make a forecast, but I hope that they will reach a successful conclusion before too long.

  GERMANY

    Foreign Service Officers (Children's Education)
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Foreign Office personnel living in Berlin have been informed that, as from 1st April, they will have to contribute£125 per annum for each child at the British Families Educational Service School run by the Army; and to what extent this new ruling applies to other non-military personnel.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: It is not proposed to make any change in the existing arrangements before the autumn term, and the fees to be charged are still under consideration. Normally members of the Foreign Service are responsible for arranging for the education of their children, and it is proposed to bring the arrangements in Berlin into line with the normal practice.
    Mr. Rodgers: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the security guards or the Foreign Office clerks were in England

    2345
    they would be able to send their children to school free, and that it is monstrous that they should be asked to pay, as I understand they have been,£40 a term, on average, for their children to attend a grossly overcrowded school? If they are charged, is it the intention of the Foreign Office to make any contribution towards the fees?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: They are paid children's allowances, which take into account this sort of payment.
    Mr. Bellenger: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for War to see that there is no discrimination as between Foreign Office personnel and military personnel?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I will look into that point, certainly.

    Robert Bialek (Disappearance)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has made to the Communist authorities in East Berlin concerning the kidnapping in West Berlin of Robert Bialek; and what reply has been received to such protest.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Acting British Commandant in Berlin wrote to the Soviet Commandant on the 8th February informing him of the disappearance of Bialek in circumstances which are at present obscure and asking him to make inquiries. So far no reply has been received.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intolerable succession of unexplained crimes committed in Western Berlin makes it impossible to place any reliance whatever upon Communist good faith?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am afraid that there is much in what my hon. Friend says.

    British Forces (Cost)
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what agreement the Federal German Government are obliged to contribute to the cost of British forces in Germany after May, 1956.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Federal German Government agreed, by the terms of the amended Bonn Finance Convention,
    2346
    to negotiate with other member Governments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, who have forces stationed in the Federal territory, in respect of questions relating to the support after May, 1956, of those forces.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear from that answer that the Federal German Government are under no real obligation to contribute a penny towards the cost of British troops in Germany; that as a result the Chancellor finds himself£70 million out of pocket after having been thoroughly outsmarted by the Federal Government when he was Foreign Secretary, and that the British taxpayer has been swindled as well?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong; under the Convention, in accordance with Article III of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Federal Government agreed that they would negotiate with other members of N.A.T.O. about the support of forces in Germany and, as has been stated already, it is the whole spirit of the N.A.T.O. alliance that there should be fair sharing of burdens. That is the position.

  BRITISH WEST INDIES (GUIDED MISSILES)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has made with the United States Government for the extension of their long-range proving ground for guided missiles in the Bahamas and for the reoccupation by United States forces of bases in the British West Indies for missile operations.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) on 8th February.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Bean Field Base in St. Lucia is now being reactivated, and that protests have been made in the Legislature of St. Lucia about the fact that they have not been properly consulted about the purposes for which this base is being reactivated, and also that there is no proper protection being introduced for the population there? In view of the seriousness of this matter, would the right hon. and learned

  2347
  Gentleman consider putting a full report before the House so that both we and the West Indian people can be fully informed?
  Mr. Lloyd: My information is that steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants, and the Governments of the territories have been consulted at every stage of the negotiations.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the St. Lucia Legislature a request was made that if this base was to be reopened for guided missile purposes, there ought to be, at any rate, a deep shelter policy for the inhabitants, and that was turned down? This is a very serious matter to West Indian people and to this House. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman place a full report before the House?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies about that.

  FRANCE (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the French Government in respect to the detaining in prison in Amiens of three British subjects, R. N. Bradley, K. W. Saward and B. M. Hutton since 17th July, 1955, without trial.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my noble Friend on 13th February to the hon. Member for Norfolk. Central (Sir F. Medlicott).
  Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen that answer? Will the hon. Gentleman say why no representations were made until Questions were put on the Order Paper? Is it a fact that the lack of activity is due to the fact that these three men are just poor people?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Certainly not. A member of the consulate has seen the three men concerned recently, but the consulate has been in touch with the defence lawyers from the start of this case.

  CHINA (EXPORT EMBARGO LIST)
  Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now arrange for revision of the list of articles which may not be exported to China from this country.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the statement on the Washington talks made by the Prime Minister on 13th February.
  Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister press for the real and substantial revision indicated by the early reports in the Press of the Washington talks, and not the sham revision indicated in later reports? When will it begin? Does the Minister appreciate that there is a danger of losing permanently this vast market for British goods and also the opportunity of reducing East-West tension?
  Mr. Lloyd: We are agreed that the test with regard to decontrol is the extent to which it serves the interests of the free world. The whole list will be gone through, bearing that test in mind, and the process has begun.

  UNITED NATIONS

    South Korea and Vietnam
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations voted on the proposal of Nationalist China that South Korea and Southern Vietnam should be admitted to membership of the United Nations.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The United Kingdom Representative on the Security Council voted in favour of the Nationalist Chinese amendments to add South Korea and Vietnam to the list of eighteen countries recommended by the General Assembly for admission to the United Nations.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not this a most extraordinary decision, particularly in the case of Southern Vietnam? Does not our support for the admission of part of Vietnam to the United Nations represent a complete abandonment of our pledge at Geneva to support the unification of

    2349
    that country? Does the decision mean that the British Government have abandoned all hope of unification?
    Mr. Lloyd: Not at all, Sir; in neither case does it show that we have abandoned the idea of unification. We recognise the Governments of each of the territories. When an amendment was put forward, we supported it. As a matter of practical politics, we supported the list of eighteen which was originally put forward, and I think it would have been wiser if it had been left at that. However, another two having been brought up, we saw no reason why they should not also be admitted.

    Children's Emergency Fund
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received urging Her Majesty's Government to increase our contribution to the United Nations Emergency Children's Fund.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Representations have been received from many quarters, but, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on 24th January, Her Majesty's Government much regret that in present financial circumstances it is not possible to propose an increase.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a sense of general shame in the country at the miserably small contribution, amounting to about one penny per head of the population per year, that we contribute to this vastly important work? In view of that and the representations from widely differing organisations in the country, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the matter, and all my right hon. Friends are fully aware of it, but, as I have said, in present financial circumstances I regret that it is not possible to propose an increase.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the comment that a very large proportion of the contribution that we make flows back to our own Colonies and, therefore, relatively, in comparison with other countries, the proportion that we contribute to the Fund is very small?
    2350
    Will he reconsider the matter in the light of that fact?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is taken into account. The point arises on a later Question.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend agree that the contribution which the British Government make to colonial development benefits the children in the Colonies, and that when we assess the contribution that we are making to the Fund, we should bear that in mind?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, Sir; that is so. We spend many millions of pounds in different welfare activities overseas, of which U.N.I.C.E.F. is only one.
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum was expended by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund in territories under British sovereignty in the last full year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The last full year for which figures are available is 1954, when £187,740 was spent in British non-self-governing territories.
    Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the allocations for 1955 amount to more than double the British contribution in either 1955 or 1956? Does he not feel some shame that this country, one of the richest in the world, should be twenty-third on the list and should appear to be profiteering out of international charity?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I most certainly feel no shame about it. This country has done a tremendous amount since the war, and is doing a tremendous amount, to help people overseas. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that what we have spent on U.N.I.C.E.F. since the war amounts to an annual average of £50,000 for the years 1948 to 1951 and an annual average of £137,000 for the years 1952 to 1955.
    Mr. Stokes: The cost of living has gone up.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not feel ashamed, there are many others who do? Is he also aware that apart from anything else it is bad housekeeping, because not only is all this money spent in dependencies,

    2351
    as has been said, but far more is spent by U.N.I.C.E.F. in this country in ordering goods and supplies for its world-wide programme than we subscribe, so that even from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is a good deal to be said for increasing the British subscription.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The figures available to me do not bear out what the right hon. Member says.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Disarmament Sub-Committee
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will submit to the forthcoming meeting of the Disarmament Sub-Committee a draft disarmament convention.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have never ruled this out as a useful initiative at some stage, but I do not think that stage has yet been reached.
    Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that those who have studied the proceedings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, especially during May and June last year, are surprised at the large measure of agreement between the two sides, even extending to the topic of control? Could not the whole thing now be brought to a point of decision by putting forward a draft convention at the next meeting?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is not my view. The time may come when it will be useful to draw up a draft convention, but there are still substantial differences about control. Until those have been cleared up, I do not think that that is the right thing to do.
    Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think, even though he may well be right about the disagreement on control, that there is need in the near future for some clear, co-ordinated statement of our position on disarmament for the benefit of the world? It may be that the Sub-Committee is not the right place, but would he not agree that there is a danger of falling behind in the propaganda race, even though our proposals are not entirely received?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made should be borne in mind. Of course one of the difficulties—and we have to face it—is the fact that the hopes which some of us had earlier about the control of nuclear armaments have been found by both sides to be more difficult to realise, and that is the practical problem which we are at present trying to tackle. I certainly do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that at the appropriate time we should make a clear statement of our position.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the very difficulty to which the Foreign Secretary referred, namely, the difficulty of controlling stocks of nuclear weapons, one of the things which ought to be made clear in any public statement made and the emphasis which I imagine the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to put on at any rate the control of conventional weapons?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would have thought it was becoming fairly widely known that the control of nuclear weapons is extremely difficult. That being so, what we have to try to do is to get a measure of agreement on some partial disarmament plan in the conventional field so that we can make some progress and, in the meantime, continue to examine the problems of the control of nuclear arms.

    Spain
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurances were obtained from the Spanish Government that they would observe the clauses in the Charter regarding religious freedom before Her Majesty's Government supported the admission of Spain to the United Nations.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: There is no article in the Charter of the United Nations which would require Her Majesty's Government to obtain any such assurance from the Spanish Government.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that the latest example of religious persecution in Spain is the forcible closing of the Protestant Theological Seminary in Madrid, and is the Minister making no protest about the matter?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am aware of that. Of course, there are no direct British interests involved in that and therefore we have no locus standi for making a protest. In the past Her Majesty's Ambassador has made representations to the Spanish Government, who are fully aware already of how deeply we deplore religious discrimination and persecution, wherever it may occur.
    Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the fact that this is not the first time that there has been religious persecution in Spain——
    Mr. Stokes: Or in England.
    Mr. Thomas: We are dealing with Spain at the moment—is it not unfortunate that the Spanish Government were not notified that our support for their application for admission to the United Nations would depend upon them behaving as decent human beings?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will look at my original Answer, he will see the reply to that.

    East-West Trade
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which member-States of the United Nations are now represented on, or associated with, the Consultative Group Co-ordination Committee on East-West Trade; how many of these States have notified the committee of their intention to issue licences for the export of turbo-generators to China; and if he will propose at the next meeting that these goods should be removed from the embargo list.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The following member-States of the United Nations are represented on the Consultative Group: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
    None of these States has notified the Co-ordinating Committee of their intention to issue licences for the export of turbo-generators to China.
    As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13th February on the Washington talks.
    Mr. Swingler: Does that answer mean that this question has not been raised at all in the Committee? Has there been no discussion about it? Is there no liaison between the Committee and Sweden and Switzerland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sweden is exporting turbo-generators to China, and is it part of the Government's policy that the Swedes and the Swiss should have first preference in the China market because they had the advantage of not participating in the Korean war?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No. Switzerland is not a member of the United Nations and Sweden did not sign the United Nations Resolution.

  MIDDLE EAST

    Arab Broadcasting Station, Amman
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost to Her Majesty's Government of assisting the establishment of the Arab broadcasting station at Amman; and to what Vote the cost is charged.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir." The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the Joint Under-Secretary take steps to publicise his reply, because the view is held throughout the Middle East that Mr. Bahri, whose last broadcasting job was speaking for Hitler at the Berlin broadcasting station, the call-sign of which was "Hail the Arab," the same as that of the Amman station, was forced upon the Jordan Government by the Foreign Office?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is certainly not true. I hope that those concerned will note my reply and give it due publicity.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is any part of the subvention given to the Jordan Government for the Arab Legion used for broadcasting purposes?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir; no money from the Arab Legion subsidy or the development loan is used for that purpose. The broadcasting item in the Jordan budget is entirely a Jordan affair.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the reply by the Joint Under-Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Supply of Arms
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs how many Centurion tanks have been supplied to Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, and how many to Israel.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the numbers of Centurion tanks supplied, respectively, to Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel, during each of the 12 months from February, 1955, to January, 1956.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is not the practice to disclose details of military equipment supplied to foreign Governments.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is correct, as has appeared in several newspapers here and overseas, that Egypt has had thirty-three Centurion tanks, Jordan has had twelve, Iraq eight, and Israel none? Will he in particular answer the last part of my supplementary question and say whether Israel has had any at all?
    Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to make me depart from the practice which I have just confirmed.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state the relative firepower of the Centurion and the Sherman mounted with the high velocity French gun?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a question which, if put to the appropriate Minister, will no doubt be answered.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary knows that these Centurions have been supplied, will he not agree that that is a breach of the Tripartite Declaration in that it makes it impossible for anyone faced with these Centurions to be able to defend himself, unless proper arms are supplied for the purpose?
    Mr. Lloyd: In regard to the existing balance of strength, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what his hon. Friend
    2356
    the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said the last time we debated this issue.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, in spite of the fact that he says it is not usual for information about this matter to be given, that every docker on the Liverpool and Birkenhead line of docks knows for a positive fact that thirty-four Centurions have been shipped from Liverpool and Birkenhead to Egypt within the last six months?
    Mr. Lloyd: That may be so, but it does not affect the position, which is that it is not the practice of the Government to give such information, the reason being that it is impossible to give a complete picture by quoting individual figures. To do so would have no regard to what countries are getting from other countries; the procedure would be highly unsatisfactory to purchasers and might well result in countries purchasing from other suppliers, when we would lose all control.
    Mr. Robens: May I put the question in another way? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied, taking into consideration the supply of arms to the Middle East generally, that the balance of arms is being maintained and so contained within the Tripartite Declaration?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am satisfied that the present position is as I stated it when the matter was debated. I recognised quite frankly that in the future a different situation might arise.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total value of arms applied for by Egypt and Israel, respectively, in the last 12 months; and what is the percentage sold to each country.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said on 18th April, 1951,"It would be contrary to practice to disclose figures of cost or other details of contracts with foreign Governments."
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am not asking for specific details of arms that have been supplied to the countries concerned, but merely the money value of the arms supplied? Would he be good enough to say, for the enlightenment of

    2357
    myself and other right hon. and hon. Members, whether it is possible to assess the truth about the balance of arms in Middle East countries unless we have the information for which I have asked?
    Mr. Lloyd: It would be quite impossible; it might make it more difficult to assess the situation if the right hon. Gentleman received only a small part of the picture. As I have said, there are many other countries which supply arms.
    Mr. Shinwell: In that case, if it would be invidious to supply hon. Members with a part of the picture, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to give us the whole picture?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not within my power to do so, because there are many other countries which supply arms.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will name the countries from which are derived the supplies of arms to Egypt which are to be taken into consideration when the signatories of the Tripartite Declaration meet in respect of the implementation of that declaration.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Egypt, like other sovereign States, has access to arms supplies from all countries able and willing to supply them. It would not serve, any purpose to give a list of these countries. Our own policy, as explained many times to the House, is based on our best judgment in the light of all factors and in furtherance of the policy of the Tripartite Declaration.
    Mr. Janner: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless an actual attack is made by Egypt, that Answer leaves no possibility at all for anybody to examine the position in the light of the Declaration? Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to stand on the ground that we are never to know at all whether the judgment of the Government is right in this matter? Will he say whether such countries as Spain are supplying arms to Egypt at present?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will endeavour to answer it.
    Mr. Janner: With the same answer.

  FORMOSA (EXTRADITION REQUEST)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to secure the extradition from Formosa of Mr. Chow Tse-ming, wanted by the Hong Kong police for placing a time bomb in the Indian airliner that blew up last April, killing sixteen Chinese Government officials; and
  what he proposes to do to secure compliance by the Formosa authorities with this request.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As soon as a warrant was issued in Hong Kong for the arrest of Chow Tse-ming the provincial authorities in Formosa were requested to return him for trial. After repeated reminders Her Majesty's Consul, Tam-sui, was informed that the competent authorities were unable to deal with the matter, since owing to the absence of an extradition treaty, the request was not based on legal grounds.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Chiang Kai-shek and his regime depend for their survival in Formosa on American subsidies and arms? Will he ask the United States Government to secure the extradition by their protégé of this wanted murderer?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think we have handled the matter in a better way.

  QUEMOY AND MATSU
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government continue to recognise that the islands of Quemoy and Matsu are Chinese territory under the sovereignty of the Government of China.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4th February, 1955, to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). That is still the position of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does that reply mean that the Government are in any doubt that Quemoy and Matsu are Chinese territory and always have been, that the Peking Government, therefore, have

  2359
  sovereignty over them, and, consequently, that any attempt by the United States to resist by force the reoccupation of these islands by the Chinese Government would constitute aggression against Chinese territorial integrity and violation of the United Nations Charter?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will look at what the Prime Minister said, he will see that our position is stated quite specifically, and I think it will be termed satisfactory even by the hon. Member.

  BALLOONS (FREE EUROPE PRESS)
  Mr. Bairdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the source of the propaganda balloons which recently drifted over this country; and what representations he has made in order to prevent this happening again.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: These balloons appear to have been launched by the Free Europe Press from German soil. The answer to the second part of the Question is "None, Sir."
  Mr. Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he does not protest to the Americans about this? Are we so much under their thumb that we cannot protect our own interests? Will he realise that this type of propaganda is exacerbating international relations?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am not aware that the people of this country were exacerbating by the contents of leaflets which fell in the United Kingdom, but certainly it is not for Her Majesty's Government to take up what is a private activity in another country.
  Major Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware that these balloons are designed in a small and responsible way simply to propagate the truth in the countries behind the Iron Curtain where truth is at present stifled? Is there any reason why anyone who is not a Communist or fellow-traveller should object to that?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I quite agree. The restoration of East-West contacts, broken by Soviet censorship, would be the best way of grounding these balloons.

  O.E.E.C. (ATOMIC ENERGY)
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the next Organisation for European Economic Co-operation Council meeting, he will put forward proposals to reconcile the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation atomic energy plan and the Euratom proposals, to show that the two plans are politically compatible, and that the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation plan is flexible enough to include Euratom.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The report of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation Working Party on Nuclear Energy deals with the possibility of a flexible scheme of co-operation. The Foreign Ministers of the Messina Conference Powers, after a meeting in Brussels on 11th February, issued a communiqué indicating a general disposition to collaborate with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, whose wider framework, it was stated, was perfectly compatible with their more concentrated efforts. Her Majesty's Government will be happy to discuss the matter on this basis at the next meeting of the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation Ministerial Council.
  Mr. de Freitas: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the delay of the Government in making a statement about this gives rise to a great deal of misunderstanding on the Continent because, from this delay, we appear to regard the matter as of no importance?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that is correct. This communique was issued after the meeting on 11th February; and the one thing which we have been very anxious to preserve is O.E.E.C. itself.
  Mr. Robens: In view of his reply a short time ago about the difficulty of controlling nuclear weapons, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he should look again at the question of Euratom and O.E.E.C.? Does not he think this is probably the only chance we shall have of controlling nuclear energy in Europe as a whole, including Germany, which is a very important aspect of this matter?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think these are important aspects. Provided that this new organisation is compatible with O.E.E.C, we are

  2361
  perfectly prepared to examine how we can further our relationships with it.
  Mr. Robens: Is there not a great difference between the approach of O.E.E.C. and the Eupopean nations inasmuch as Euratom will give a control over nuclear energy while the O.E.E.C. plan would be a question of partnership and a good deal of control would be left in the national States?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the Euratom plan, as I understand it, takes that form, I see no reason why it should not be compatible with O.E.E.C. What we have to make certain is that it will not be incompatible.
  Mr. Brooman-White: Will my right hon. and learned Friend use what influence he can to ensure that the various groups of experts who are working on these vitally important plans should, in so far as possible, approach that work in a spirit of co-operation and not competition?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would certainly agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Plant Construction Programme
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what changes have recently been made in the plant construction programme of the Atomic Energy Authority; and to what extent these changes will affect the atomic power programme.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Apart from such modifications of detail as are constantly occurring in any major construction programme, no changes have recently been made in the Atomic Energy Authority's plant construction programme, except for the decision, already announced, to abandon the proposal to manufacture heavy water in New Zealand.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the Lord Privy Seal say what the changes, referred to in the Supplementary Estimate on this matter, are about? Is he aware that there is a general view among experts that the whole nuclear power programme is far behind what will be required in this country in the 1960's? Is it under review, and when shall we have an announcement on acceleration?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has raised wider questions than those on the Order Paper. I will give them my immediate attention and discuss them with my noble Friend when he returns to this country. If the hon. Member will allow me to do that, I will endeavour to give him answers to his questions.

    Technical Information (Private Firms)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal the Government's policy regarding the utilisation by private firms of technical information on the industrial applications of nuclear power obtained from persons or establishments under the control of the Atomic Energy Authority.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Atomic Energy Authority informs me that it is its policy to encourage access by private firms to technical information in the industrial application of nuclear power in order that industry may participate more fully in these important new developments. Steps are taken to ensure that firms are not enabled to acquire exclusive rights on the basis of information supplied by the Atomic Energy Authority.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that private firms, such as Rolls-Royce, are now picking the brains and expertise of men who have been employed for many years in public establishments such as Harwell? In the light of the fresh announcement today by A.E.I. and Mitchell Engineering Ltd., will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the Government's policy regarding the private exploitation of information and facilities created by public enterprise upon which a great deal of public money has been spent?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, I will investigate the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers. Apart from that, I have stated what is the broad line of Government policy.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware mat the announcement today that the Atomic Energy Authority and private enterprise are collaborating closely on the construction of new plant will give the utmost satisfaction?
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: In view of the fact that the announcement today that A.E.I, is to put up a reactor at Aldermaston worked with fissile material supplied by the Atomic Energy Authority denotes a new phase in the relationship between the State and private industry, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be most desirable that we should know in greater detail than has already been stated what is the Government's policy about that relationship and what it is to be?
    Mr. Butler: I have stated the lines of Government policy in the Answer which I gave. On the particular issues perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put down particular Questions.
    Mr. Strauss: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of issuing a White Paper on the subject?
    Mr. Butler: I will discuss the question of letting the House have the maximum information which is in the public interest with my noble Friend, whose responsibility for administration it is, on his early return to this country.

MALAYA (CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. AWBERY: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement concerning his negotiations with Tengku Abdul Rahman on the subject of the independence of the Federation of Malaya.
Mr. SORENSEN: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement in respect of the agreement reached at the Conference held to consider the future constitution of Malaya.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, I will now reply to Questions Nos. 58 and 73.
The House, I think, knows of the background to the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Conference which ended last week. The story is set out in its Report. Copies are already in the Library and the Vote Office of the House and it will shortly be printed and laid
2364
before Parliament as a White Paper. I want now simply to comment briefly upon its main features.
The Report refers to the desire of the Malayan delegation that full self-government and independence within the Commonwealth should be proclaimed by August, 1957, if possible. The Report agreed that a Constitution so providing should be introduced at the earliest possible date consistent with the importance of the task before the Constitutional Commission, and that every effort would be made by Her Majesty's Government and the Federation Government to achieve this by the time proposed.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to make provision for the interim period, and the recommendations in the Report are principally concerned with this. In accordance with previously accepted procedure, the recommendations of the Conference about the composition and terms of reference of the proposed Constitutional Commission are being submitted separately. The immediate changes proposed include the transfer to Malayan Ministers of responsibility for finance and development and for internal defence and security and for the withdrawal of the British advisers to the rulers.
As regards defence, so long as the emergency continues it is recommended that the forces required for its prosecution should remain under the operational command of the Director of Operations and be used to aid the civil authorities in giving effect to the directions of an Emergency Operations Council, of which the Malayan Minister for Internal Defence and Security will be Chairman and the Director of Operations a member. It is also proposed that there should be a permanent Federation Armed Forces Council, with functions in relation to the local armed forces broadly corresponding to those of the Army and Air Councils in the United Kingdom.
A fully self-governing Federation of Malaya will be responsible for external defence, and it was agreed that at that stage there should be an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Federation making provision for defence requirements and mutual assistance in defence matters, including provision affording to Her Majesty's Government both the right to maintain in the Federation the forces

2365
necessary for the fulfilment of Commonwealth and international obligations and also the facilities needed in the Federation for the support of these forces, which would include the Commonwealth strategic reserve.
For their part, Her Majesty's Government will undertake to assist the Government of the Federation in the external defence of its territory. It is proposed that the details should be studied by a working party to be set up as soon as possible under the chairmanship of the Commissioner General for the United Kingdom in South-East Asia, in which the Australian and New Zealand Governments would be invited to participate through observers.
The Report also contains important recommendations on financial and economic matters, relating both to the interim period and to that after attainment of full self-government, including a reaffirmation of the Federation Government's desire to encourage overseas investment to look to Malaya with every assurance of fair and considerate treatment.
It makes a number of proposals relating to the position of the public service, including recommendations for the establishment of a Public Service Commission, a Judicial Service Commission and a Police Service Commission, and outlines the provisions of a compensation scheme for those whose position and prospects may be affected by the consequences of the constitutional changes.
This will, I am sure, go far to remove any feeling of insecurity in the service, in which British officers, like other men and women from Britain in agriculture, mining and other spheres, have over the years contributed so much in skill and devoted service to the building up of the Federation to the point at which it can now look forward confidently to full self-government within the Commonwealth.
All the recommendations in the Report are subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government and of Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States.
Her Majesty's Government were very glad to welcome the Chief Minister, representatives of the Rulers and members of the Government. We had a very
2366
friendly conference in which all concerned approached the task in a spirit of recognition of our common interest. The friendship and confidence which existed is a good assurance for a future happy partnership with the Federation of Malaya, which we look forward to seeing take in due course its place as a fully self-governing member of the Commonwealth.
Mr. J. Griffiths: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself may I say how very much we welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as a notable step forward towards the fulfilment of our policy in the Colonial Territories? We shall require to study the White Paper, and it may be that questions which we wish to discuss will arise from that study. While I welcome in the arrangements for the future the proposal that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand should be brought into consultation, one question which seems to me of importance is whether from the very beginning we ought not to include the Government of Singapore. It would, I think, be desirable that the Government of Singapore, so close to the Federation, should be equally associated with these discussions. In view of the very welcome statement that after independence in August next year, or whatever may be the date, and that here we find it possible to reconcile the grant of independence to a territory and yet make satisfactory defence arrangements, can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government will bear that in mind as we await our conclusions here at home?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. One of the easier features of my work has been the knowledge that in my task I have carried with me the united good wishes of the British people as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Singapore, with which important territory separate talks are taking place. I would hesitate at this stage to prejudge the outcome of those talks, which are of very great importance.
Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is almost the climax of many years of hope and effort by the people of Malaya? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has conducted the negotiations. Will

2367
he convey to the delegation the thanks of this House for the broad mind which it brought to bear upon the discussions? At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people of Malaya—to show that we acquiesce in what he himself has done—that we are prepared to offer them financial and other assistance during the transition period? If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, it will help the transition very considerably.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the members of the delegation know how happy I have been to work with them and what confidence Her Majesty's Government have in them. This was indeed the climax of effort on their part, but also on the part of large numbers of British officers who have served for many years under great difficulties in Malaya, and whose continued association—in many cases—with Malaya is one of the best auguries for its future development.
Mr. Bellenger: In his original statement, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Commonwealth strategic reserve. On more than one occasion we have tried to elicit from the Secretary of State for War more information about the British strategic reserve. Could the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether there is any connection between the two and, if so, what it is?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Any Minister would hesitate to make a statement of this kind if it were likely to lead to him having to answer questions of that kind.
Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will merit and receive the thanks and congratulations of the whole country to himself personally?
Mr. Sorensen: While expressing appreciation of what has been achieved, may I ask two minor questions? First, will there be any more elaborate statement dealing with the details than the one the Minister has made today; and, secondly, can he say whether any discussions took place on the basis of the internal franchise of Malaya in the future?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There will, as I have said, be a White Paper published,
2368
and on that, no doubt, Question Time is available for future discussions.
Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister bear in mind the point about financial assistance to Malaya? The country has suffered very considerably as a result of the emergency. Will the Minister answer the question whether we can give some assistance?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think there is very little doubt in the Federation of Malaya as to the magnitude of the contribution which Her Majesty's Government have made, and indeed they themselves have contributed enormously towards meeting the cost of the emergency.
Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask the
right hon. Gentleman a question on a minor point? Will there be some explanation in the White Paper of the Commonwealth strategic reserve, which I do not think has been mentioned in any other document? It would be of great interest to know what it is.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will look at that point.

BILL PRESENTED
  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
  Bill to provide for the registration and judicial investigation of certain restrictive trading agreements, and for the prohibition of such agreements when found contrary to the public interest; to prohibit the collective enforcement of conditions regulating the resale price of goods, and to make further provision for the individual enforcement of such conditions by legal proceedings; to amend the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Acts, 1948 and 1953; to provide for the appointment of additional judges of the High Court and of the Court of Session; and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Walker-Smith; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The large amount of time which the House has devoted to the consideration of this Bill has not been disproportionate to its importance, for it represents the opening of a new phase in post-war housing finance and policy. Hitherto, that finance and policy have been based in the main on the 1946 Act, which, introduced just after the end of the late war, provided for the payment of a subsidy on every house built by local housing authorities. It was implicit in the thinking both of the Coalition Government before the end of the war and of the Labour Government which succeeded it in 1945 that the circumstances of the building industry in the months and possibly years immediately following the end of hostilities would be entirely abnormal, and that to get the building of houses to let going again on a substantial scale, it would be necessary, at first at any rate, to subsidise generally the rents of those post-war houses.
  Probably Members of all parties were influenced very much by their recollections of the course of events following the end of the First World War, when building costs rose to fantastic levels in the first year or two, with practically no building work being done, and then fell away again sharply towards levels which were not very far out of touch with the cost of building before the First World War broke out. There was never propounded, nor do I believe at that time entertained, the idea that the subsidising of all rents of all new houses would be a permanent feature of our economy or our social services.
  This had not been the view of the Labour Party. The Greenwood Act of 1930 was accompanied by a circular which stated the opposite principle explicitly. That circular said of the subsidies which were introduced by the Act of 1930:
  2370
  "The clear intention of Parliament is that the new grant shall not enure to persons for whom it is not needed. The grant, together with the prescribed rate charge, should be regarded as a pool out of which such abatements or other special arrangements in regard to rent as the local authorities propose may be financed. … Rent relief should be given only to those who need it and only for so long as they need it."
  The 1946 Act itself provided for a reduction of the subsidies, and clearly anticipated that such a reduction would be made almost immediately, if possible.
  Now, in 1956, at the distance of almost a decade, we can see more clearly. The relationship between building costs, on the one hand, and costs and wages generally, on the other, has proved, in fact, to be fairly stable, and if one may hope for, and indeed expect, a certain favourable modification of that relationship, it would be quite unrealistic to refuse to accept it, as more or less the post-war norm. Against that background, looking back over these ten years, we are able to see that the continued payment of large subsidies on every new house has ceased to be defensible, and indeed the public at large regard it as increasingly anomalous.
  It was the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) who, at the 1950 conference of his party, observed:
  "You must always remember, when you are talking about council rents, that the rate subsidies are being paid by the people that have worse houses to keep down the rents of people who have better houses."
  Those words might serve as an apt description of the growing public attitude towards the house-by-house subsidies in general as they are paid under the system established by the 1946 Act.
  By now, the vast majority of local housing authorities command large amounts of subsidy payable upon their stock of pre-war and post-war houses. In the Government's view, this should be adequate to enable them to let, not only their existing houses, but all they are likely to wish to build, without either charging unreasonable rents to tenants or placing unreasonable burdens upon the ratepayers, by way of the rate contribution, which will henceforward be optional.
  Exceptions from this general principle there undoubtedly will be. Some local authorities quite certainly will not have anything like the average proportion of existing subsidised houses, and it is the

  2371
  intention of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill to cater for these exceptions; the general proposition remains unchallenged and unchallengeable. Indeed, it was put very well by a recent editorial in the Municipal Review. This is the organ of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which recently issued a document referred to more than once in our debates on this Bill, in order to have-and I am quoting from the document—
  "placed on record their serious concern at the possible adverse effect which the raising of the rates of interest"
  and the withdrawal of
  "all housing subsidies for general housing may have upon the ability of housing authorities to carry out their statutory obligations to provide for the housing needs of the people."
  That is what the Association of Municipal Corporations said—it placed on record its serious concern at this possible adverse effect.
  But the crux of the matter was very well put by the editorial of that journal —it was the issue for December, 1955— which read as follows:
  "If it is felt that the discontinuance of the subsidy will make local authority housing rents unreasonable then the most effective answer to the Government is to publish figures showing the rents which would have to be charged assuming that all subsidies and local authority houses are pooled, and subsidies used only for tenants who need them, and only to the extent of their need."
  —an echo, conscious or unconscious, of the wording of the Greenwood circular a quarter of a century before.
  Not only has that challenge not been taken up, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a paper upon these matters which he presented to a discussion in his party a few weeks ago, himself agreed—I quote his words— that
  "net rents of existing houses could be increased in many cases … without causing undue hardship."
  Nobody, in fact, believes that local housing authorities will find themselves unable except at the cost of high rents or high rates to go on building for general needs. This was really the conclusion to which the Leader of the Opposition came, and I should like to read his summing up to the House. He said:
  2372
  "This paper has been designed round the question: Should local authorities continue to build houses for normal needs, despite the fact that no subsidy will be received on them from the Exchequer in future?"
  He continued:
  "Any Labour Group, especially those in a majority, which answers 'no' to this question when they have persons living in overcrowded conditions in their area, is in effect saying to the families on their housing list, 'We are not even going to try to meet your needs.' We must surely do our best as a Party at all levels to help the homeless and overcrowded families in the country"——
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Powell: Oh, yes—
  "and the answer surely should be, 'yes, wherever there is need.'"
  This is the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman came. He did not say anything about it being impracticable, or about this Bill bringing building for general needs to a stop. On the contrary, he said that
  "Labour groups should press for the continuation of ordinary house building for general needs wherever there is a demand for such houses, even if it does mean agreeing to increases of rents for existing council houses."
  which he had just conceded were, in many cases, possible without undue hardship.
  The principle that local housing authorities in general—I have referred to the provisions contained in the Bill to meet the exceptional cases—can and will finance their future housing operations for general needs with the pool of subsidies already payable has an important corollary, namely, that where a local housing authority is expected to build upon a relatively large scale not to meet the general needs of its own inhabitants but in implementation of the policy of urban de-congestion—which I believe all hon. Members, whatever their personal reservations, regard as inevitable and, indeed, essential—that local authority must be provided with extra help. That is the reason for the overspill subsidies mentioned in paragraphs (c) to (f) of Clause 3 (3).
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his quotations from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, will he declare that it is also Conservative policy that local authorities should build houses wherever there is a need?
  Mr. Powell: Yes. That has been repeatedly stated by my right hon. Friend. He has asserted time and again that the Bill will in no way disable local housing authorities from continuing to build for the general needs of their areas upon such scale as they may think appropriate.
  Mr. Bevan: We are not talking about the influence of the Bill upon the policy or otherwise of local authorities to build; we are talking about what it is desirable to do. Does the hon. Member now state that in Conservative opinion it is desirable that where local authorities have Conservative majorities they should still go on building houses for general needs?
  Mr. Powell: Yes. That is accepted. Time and again in these debates my right hon. Friend has emphasised the statutory obligation which rests upon local housing authorities to provide, where necessary, for the housing needs of their areas. There is nothing novel in that; it is embedded in a Statute which my right hon. Friend has quoted upon three or four occasions and which was passed by a Conservative Government with a large Conservative majority.
  Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Powell: Then the right hon. Gentleman can quote the passage and draw the opposite deduction from it later on.
  I come back to the question of local housing authorities building for overspill, and for which the provision in the Bill for additional assistance is a corollary of the general principle which underlies it. Housing authorities who build for overspill will not have to do so at the expense of their own domestic pool of subsidies, but will receive a higher Exchequer subsidy than at present and a contribution either from the exporting authority or the Exchequer, according to the circumstances of the scheme. So the overspill subsidies are in no way the exception to the general principle upon which the Bill is founded.
  One real exception there is, and for that exception I make no apology. The Bill retains the existing rate of subsidy for all houses built to rehouse families displaced in the course of slum clearance operations. The result of this will be that authorities who clear slum houses will be assured that their pool of subsidies will expand pro rata with their building
  2374
  for slum clearance purposes. This provision is, and is intended to be, an inducement to local authorities to make slum clearance a first priority. The Bill will not mean that local housing authorities will cease to build for general needs. That has been dramatically confirmed by the ex cathedra statement of the Leader of the Opposition. The Bill should mean that a greater proportion of the building of local authority houses than in the past is devoted to slum clearance.
  So far, this provision has been tiny; indeed, in the last year—which showed a better figure than any previous year since the war——
  Mr. Bevan: It should.
  Mr. Powell: As indeed it should; that is in the nature of things—the proportion of local authority houses which went to rehousing the occupants of demolished houses was only about 10 per cent. Her Majesty's Government believe that this proportion ought now to be a really substantial one, and that public opinion is in favour of making the removal of unfit houses the nation's first objective in the field of housing policy.
  It was as long ago as March, 1949, that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was saying, in introducing the Second Reading of the 1949 Housing Act:
  "The next stage is to raise housing standards. That must be done first of all and most importantly by slum clearance. It is pleasing to be able to recall that slum clearance has already started in one or two parts of the country, where local authorities are in the happy position of having practically cleared their housing lists and can now consider rehousing. So the first main activity will be slum clearance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2129.]
  That was seven years ago. Since then, despite a 50 per cent. increase in the rate of building, with the construction of a further 1½ million houses since the right hon. Gentleman spoke, he might well use the same words today. The Government accept the challenge. They do not believe that 10 per cent. for slum clearance will do for 1956 and the following years. This Bill puts the emphasis, where, in our opinion, it ought to be—upon the earliest removal of unfit houses; and it gives the local housing authorities the incentive and the means to do the job.
  When the Government went to the electorate nine months ago they promised—

  2375
  and I am now reading from the Conservative Election manifesto:
  "Now that the construction of new homes is going ahead so well, we shall be able to devote a larger part of our resources to the elimination of slums and the modernisation of the older houses.
  There has been only one full-scale slum clearance drive in British history, and that was when Conservatives were in office in the late 'thirties. Now, under a Conservative Government, there is going to be another. We shall root out the slums at an increasing pace, and aim to rehouse at least 200,000 people a year from them."
  This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the earnest of our determination to carry that promise into effect.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: The only point of agreement there will be between the two sides during this debate is that we agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that this Bill opened a new phase in housing finance and policy. That is true. Nevertheless, it is a very retrograde Measure, which hits at the living standards of the mass of the people. The hon. Gentleman's peroration consisted of reading with pride from the Tory manifesto issued at the last Election. He spoke of the manifesto's reference to the emphasis that a returned Tory Government would put on slum clearance, but nowhere in that document was there any indication whatever that the return of a Tory Government would mean the abolition of housing subsidies and the raising of the rents of the people.
  Had the Tories gone to the electorate with a policy which included those two matters they would not have been returned. They were, therefore, returned on a deliberate fraud. So much is that fraud now known, or becoming known, that the results, announced today, of the by-elections in areas favourable to the Government, show that the Government are on the way out. I am certain that this Bill will help them a little further on that road.
  What does this Measure set out to do? In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it means—to put it into plain, ordinary language—and not to rely on quotations out of context from what other people have said—that the rate of local authority building for general housing need will diminish, and diminish very substantially. That is the
  2376
  intention of the Bill—that local authorities shall be discouraged from providing housing for local need. It places the cost of Tory economic and financial policy on the backs of the ordinary working people. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the increased cost of providing the normal type of house, nor the increased interest charges, both of which have taken place since the Tory Government came into power.
  He did not mention that the best of local authorities will have to cut down their general housing programmes. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition acted in a responsible manner, and not in the irresponsible manner of the Tories whether in or out of Government. He said, "Here we are in a situation in which the Tory Government are attacking the living standards of the ordinary people. We can mitigate the worse effects of that attack by carrying on local authority building despite the fact that the Tories are doing their worst —or their best—to ensure that it shall be diminished."
  In the best of local authorities, the Labour-controlled councils and those in which there is an effective Labour group, there will be pressure to continue to build houses, but in reply to an interjection by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Tory Government's policy would be to encourage local authorities to build for general need. Had I known that the general trend of the debate would have gone this way today I could have brought with me scores of cuttings from local newspapers saying that, in the last few months, local authority after local authority has decided, in the light of the Government's views on housing, to discontinue building for general need.
  The Minister's Department has a very effective and efficient Press service which can get the cuttings, but perhaps I may be permitted to read just one which I happened to see in the Evening Standard last Saturday evening. It reads:
  "Council Stops Building Houses.
  Because of Government policy and the absence of any slums in its area, East Ashford (Kent) Council has decided not to build any houses this year. The council has a waiting list of 106 and, since 1945, has built 500 houses in 20 villages."

  2377
  In view of the period of time given the vast majority of those houses must have been built under the Labour Government, and most of them during the time when my right hon. Friend was Minister of Health.
  Is the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, the Government—are hon. Members opposite—proud that these Tory rural district councils have decided, because of Tory legislation now before the House, not to build houses? It is sheer hypocrisy for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there will be no cessation of local authority building because of this Bill.
  Mr. John Hay: I do not think that my hon. Friend said that. He said that there was no reason why local authorities should not go on building if there was the need, but he did not say that there would be no cessation of building at all.
  Mr. Lindgren: Then let us deal with this concrete case of the East Ashford Rural District Council. It has a housing waiting list of over 100 and has already built 500 houses in 20 villages in its area. That authority states that because of Tory policy, because of this Bill, it has decided to cease building. As I have said, there are hundreds of other authorities doing the same thing.
  The greatest possibility of mitigating the worst effects of the Bill will be in the large cities and larger urban areas. The authorities which will be in the worst position to deal with the Bill will be the rural district councils, with their sparsely spread population, low rateable value and small pool of houses. It is to the credit of the Labour Governments between 1945 and 1951 that the first houses for the ordinary people in the countryside were built during the life-time of those Governments in hundreds of villages from Land's End to John o'Groats.
  Hon. Members opposite are always talking about rural depopulation. They became very excited last night because we have a little overspill into the rural areas; they talked about the absorption of rural land and the disadvantage of putting industry into rural areas, attracting workers from the land. Nevertheless, under the Bill they are refusing to allow rural district councils to provide adequate housing for rural workers.
  2378
  Lack of adequate housing is the first cause of depopulation of the countryside. The agricultural worker's wife will no longer tolerate conditions which she tolerated in the inter-war years. She says to her husband, "In spite of the fact that you want to stop on the farm, I want a house with tap water—a decent house in which to bring up a family. If that means that you must go into the town and work in a factory, then into the town and into the factory you go." Most husbands submit to their wives, from time to time at any rate, and the rural worker is no exception. He therefore follows his wife's dictates in order to provide his family with a reasonable standard of life.
  It is equally humbug for the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to talk about this Bill providing an opportunity for the pooling of rents. That opportunity has existed ever since 1936 and the pooling of rents has been going on ever since then, even on houses built since 1936. If I may say so without undue pride on behalf of my hon. Friends, it was largely because of pressure from Labour groups and Labour authorities in the country that the provision enabling pooling was included in the 1936 Act. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will remember that spate of housing legislation which followed the 1914–18 war, starting with the Addison Act of 1919, followed by the Chamberlain Acts of 1922 and 1923 and the Wheatley Act of 1924.
  Houses under this legislation were built with varying standards of subsidy and varying rates of interest. Many who were associated with local government in those days had to pay 6 to 6½ per cent.—the rate of interest in 1922–23—to build houses under the Chamberlain Act. That is rather strange, because we now have a Tory Government and we are getting towards that stage again. Under the previous Housing Acts we had had to keep the housing revenue account of each Act separate and the result had been that we had houses of a similar type and with similar accommodation being let at varying rents because of the variation in rates of subsidy and interest rates.
  Local authorities pressed the point on successive Tory Governments and finally persuaded them to include in the 1936 Act power to pool rents. Local authorities throughout the country have been

  2379
  doing this ever since 1946, when they again resumed housing functions under the Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and under the 1949 Act; they have been pooling rents so as to enable any variation in conditions during the building to be borne over the schemes generally.
  This Bill does not provide for a pooling of rents, but for a withdrawal of the subsidy; and it places the cost of that withdrawal, plus the cost of the increased interest charges, on the rents of existing houses, even houses built as far back as 1922–23. There has not been much opportunity for hon. Members on the Government back benches to take part in our debates, but I have yet to hear from them a justification for placing the cost of the withdrawal of the subsidy, and the cost of the increased interest charges on schemes now proceeding, on the rents of a house built at 6½ per cent. in 1922–23; yet that is what this Bill does. It places on all those other schemes the cost of the withdrawal of the subsidy on future schemes.
  The Tory Party plays politics even at the cost of endangering the well-being of the country. It is playing politics with this Bill at the expense of the health and well-being of the people. Let us look at what has happened. During the whole of the period of the Labour Governments, interest rates were from 2½ to 3 per cent. and never more than 3 per cent. During that period the rate of subsidy paid by the Treasury was £16 10s. Under normal conditions of payment of subsidy, as agreed with local authority associations, there was a local rate charge of £5 10s., making a total subsidy of £22.
  The Tory Party came to power in 1951 and its first act was not to consider the welfare of the ordinary people of the country but to make a pay-off to its paymasters, the bankers. The interest rates rose overnight from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. The Tory Party then had a majority in the House of only twenty, and because it knew that at some time in the very near future it would have to go to the country, it dare not go to the country on the basis of increased rents arising from increased interest charges. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, my goodness, his sins are coming home to him now—who was then the Minister of
  2380
  Housing and Local Government, persuaded the Treasury to increase the subsidy rates from the modest rates, under a modest rate of interest prevailing during the Labour Government, to £26 14s., with £8 18s. from the local rates, making a total subsidy £35 12s.
  When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the increased cost of subsidies compared with that of 1951 they should bear this in mind. I will admit straight away that in the last year of the Labour Government those subsidies cost only £78 million whereas in the last year of the Tory Government for which figures are provided the subsidies had risen to £107 million. But that increase to £107 million was not because of additional houses, but because the rate of subsidy had increased from £22 to £35 12s. through the increase in interest rates. A major portion of the money which has been paid in extra subsidies has gone straight into the pockets of the financiers and has had no effect on the general housing provision for the ordinary people.
  If it was ethical in 1951 for the Minister's predecessor to increase subsidy rates from the Treasury from £16 10s. to £26 14s. because of a 1 per cent. rise in the Bank Rate from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent., why is the Minister now reducing the subsidy from £26 14s. to £10 when there has been a further increase in the Bank Rate, this time of ¼ to ½ per cent.? Local authorities now have to borrow at the rate of 5¼ per cent. and some of them at the rate of 5½ per cent.
  Let us see what the Minister is doing. He talks about an increase in rents of 7d. per week. If we take only two factors, and ignore the increased building costs, which are themselves a considerable factor, we get a much different figure. Let us take the two factors over which the Government have direct control—interest rates and subsidy rates. The increase in interest charges on a £1,500 house since the 4 per cent. rate in 1951 has increased the cost of the house over 1951, when the subsidy was agreed at £26 14s., by the equivalent of 7s. 6d. per week on the rent.
  The subsidy has been reduced by £25 12s. which increased the rent of the house by 10s. a week. Ignoring increased building costs and increased land charges which by virtue of amendments made by

  2381
  the Government to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, local authorities are having to pay—they pay enhanced values on land which the Tory Government have given back to the landlords—17s. 6d. more has to be paid on each house.
  We are always very modest on this side of the House and never overstate the case. For every local authority house built in future, 17s. 6d. will have to be found. Whether or not the cost is spread over a number of houses, that 17s. 6d. extra has to be paid even compared with the conditions under which local authorities were building shortly after the Tory Party took office in 1951.
  To us, of course, housing is a social service. The Government just do not accept that the housing of the people is a social service, but we do. We believe that is a fundamental of good health and good living. Pre-war, the inability of people to pay a decent rent because of low incomes meant that vast sections of our community in poverty had to double up and there were two or three families living in a house. By this Bill the Tory Government are pushing whole sections of workers back to conditions of the 1920s and 1930s. Once again, because of tenants' inability to pay higher rents which local authorities will have to charge, there will be that doubling up of two families in one house, which is a social evil and has a detrimental effect on health.
  By this Bill we are going back to prewar housing policy. The Tory Party only accepts local authority housing on the basis of the authority providing a low standard of housing, and for the lowest income groups of the country. That is the only category in which the Tory Party sees any opportunity for local authority activity. That is shown again when we consider that the houses built under the Labour Government with subsidies were houses of a decent standard. They were houses of which the building trade worker, the tenant and the local authority could be proud.
  Over and above the raising of rents and withdrawal of subsidies, the Government are lowering housing standards. Those which are to be built will be smaller houses, with lower ceilings and fewer amenities available and they will be more thickly grouped. There are to be higher rents for a lower standard of housing and,
  2382
  if the Government have their way, anyone in a local authority house who at present has an income above that of the lowest is to be encouraged to get out.
  Not only are my right hon. and hon. Friends in this House opposed to the Bill. It has no friend anywhere among any group of people who have any knowledge of working-class housing, of local government, or local authority responsibility—no friend at all. Having had a long experience in local government and having been in this House for more than ten years, I have never known a Measure which has had such wholesale opposition for local authority associations.
  My last experience of a Measure which met with some opposition was the 1929 Act, but on that occasion all the local authority associations were prepared to say—and said publicly—that, like the curate's egg, that Act was good in parts. Some parts of that Act were accepted wholeheartedly, but not a single Clause of this Measure is accepted by any local authority association.
  I challenge the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary with that statement. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted, and glossed over, the opposition of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Will he say that that Association is a local authority association whose views can be taken lightly? The late Sir Miles Mitchell, who, until his death, was chairman of the A.M.C. and associated with Manchester City Council over many years, was not in any way politically associated with hon. Members on this side of the House. He did a remarkably fine job in attempts to improve housing standards. So did the A.M.C. The A.M.C. is a very responsible body, with great knowledge of housing conditions over the whole inter-war period. It is also one of the bodies which has some experience of conditions prior to the 1914–18 war.
  This Government are flying in the face of a body such as the A.M.C. The A.M.C. has been a little more restrained in its language than has the Urban District Councils' Association. I have been associated with the Urban District Councils' Association for over thirty years, in local government service. Although it has had the power to do so, never in my experience before has that body called a special conference because of a spontaneous revolt of its membership throughout the country—

  2383
  urban districts—who signed a requisition for the calling of such a special conference on this Bill. I have not the exact figures, but I would emphasise that roughly three to one of the urban district councils are controlled by Tory majorities.
  The Urban District Council's Association, the vast majority of whose members are Tory urban district councils, demanded the withdrawal of the Bill and asked the Minister to receive a deputation. So far as I know the Minister has not received that deputation, but I am sure that he has had the request. Now that the Bill is to be given its Third Reading, I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will invite the association to send a deputation to him and will then tell the members of that deputation that the Bill has had is Third Reading and has been sent to another place.
  I have always understood that even with Tory Governments, national government and local government worked in partnership; Parliament made the possibilities and the local authorities took advantage of those possibilities. Local authorities, because of their experience in this field, advised the Government of the day of legislation which was desirable in order to improve local government services. That partnership has been broken by this Bill. All the local authority associations are against it and the Government are taking no notice whatever of the views of those people who have all the experience in this matter. They are familiar with the working of the housing Acts and the conditions under which people in their areas live. They know the effect which this Bill will have.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the hon. Gentleman be fair and acknowledge that any organisation or body, public or private, which has been a recipient of Government money and is no longer the recipient of so much is bound to make formal objection, and that part of its opposition is formulating a formal objection?
  Mr. Lindgren: I agree with the noble Lord, and I shall agree with him a little more before I have finished.
  I agree with him that anyone who is having anything withdrawn from him which he previously had makes formal
  2384
  objection. But this is not formal objection. It is an unusual condition of affairs when a body, such as a local authority association, during the course of a Bill going through this House, asks for its withdrawal, asks the Minister to receive a deputation for its withdrawal and is continually informing the Minister that the effect of the Bill will be detrimental to the responsibilities of its members for housing.
  Let us look at the field in which the Parliamentary Secretary suggests that this Bill will be really effective. Here again, it is just sheer humbug. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the purpose of the Bill is to place emphasis on slums and on overspill. In both these fields of activity it is exactly the same as building for general needs—activity will decrease and not increase.
  Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman prophesying that this year, next year and in the following years fewer slum houses will be cleared than in 1955?
  Mr. Lindgren: Yes, relatively.
  Mr. Powell: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "relatively?
  Mr. Lindgren: The Parliamentary Secretary takes the view that so far as actual slum clearance is concerned—that is actual demolition of housing—it has only been 10 per cent. of the actual provision in the past year. That is the trouble with the Minister and with the Parliamentary Secretary. They are very able at playing about with percentages and figures.
  What has been happening since 1945 is that slum clearance has been going on all the time. A very high proportion of the people who have been rehoused since 1945 were those who were overcrowded in the slums. What has happened is that where these persons were lodgers, so to speak, in the slums in those areas, the local authorities, because these people were the lodgers in the houses and not the actual tenants, have cleared the tenants and housed them elsewhere; but because the local authorities still have housing difficulties they have left the sitting tenant in the house under better conditions and less overcrowding, and so there has been slum clearance from that point of view.
  Mr. Powell: May I get the hon. Gentleman's prophecy absolutely clear? Is he saying that fewer slum houses will be cleared this year and next year than in 1954 and 1955, or that the proportion of rehousing from slum houses will be lower in those years than in the last two years?
  Mr. Lindgren: No I would not say that. The proportion of houses built for general need is going down very considerably, but because the local authorities want to do some building they will still clear some of the bad slums.
  Mr. Powell: Proportionately?
  Mr. Lindgren: They will do more, but it will be proportionately less if one takes into account what would have happened if it had not been for the Bill. [Laughter.]Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but they do so because they do not know how the ordinary people live and the conditions under which they are housed.
  Why is it that people are living in slums? In the great majority of cases they are not living in them because they want to do so. I know that there is the odd case, which a Tory newspaper or a Tory candidate picks up, of someone who would not move from a slum if he had the opportunity. The vast majority of people are in slum properties, first, because of the lower rent and their inability to pay a higher rent, and, secondly, because of close proximity to their work. A shift worker perhaps might not mind living five or six miles away from his work if he has to clock in at nine in the morning, but the man who works in a market or at a railway station at five or six in the morning wants to be as near his job as possible.
  Mr. Powell: I gather that the hon. Gentleman has agreed that more slum houses will be cleared in the future than hitherto. Is he now asserting that the number of replacements for slum houses demolished will be a smaller proportion in the future than hitherto, or a higher proportion?
  Mr. Lindgren: I will put it this way. The number of slum dwellers who will be rehoused next year and under this Bill will be far fewer than the number rehoused under the Acts each year since
  2386
  1945–46. The Government are not concerned with human beings; we on this side are concerned with human beings. The people who are being rehoused are human beings. They often come from large, overcrowded slums, and there are still those who have to be dealt with in the actual slum areas.
  As the Minister knows, week after week and month after month prior to the announcement of this Bill, local authorities had been sending to him requests for clearance orders to deal with certain areas which they wanted to clear. Those will be going on, but the actual number of people rehoused and the actual number of houses built will be much fewer.
  I will explain how local authorities will again slow down on their previous intentions for slum clearance. They will do it in this way. This Bill is not giving them any encouragement for slum clearance at all. It is maintaining a subsidy at £22 1s. instead of £26 14s. which it was last year. There is a reduction of subsidy, and an increased interest charge of l¼ per cent. If the indications of the Press are correct—and I am not saying whether the financial editors or correspondents of newspapers are accurate or not—they are expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce a further increase in interest charges.
  Those people who have to deal with slums have to do so on the basis of reduced subsidies and greatly increased interest charges for the people who are already in the lower rented properties because they cannot pay any more. How can they provide houses when, under the Bill, all that they can do is to take into account a subsidy of £22 1s. on a house which is to be built at an economic rent of about £3 5s. a week? On the basis of slum clearance it is, of course, impossible; it is even worse. It is less difficult if the local authority is in the position of being able to rehouse people more or less on the site.
  But most local authorities, in the initial stages of slum clearance, at least, will not be able to rehouse them on those sites. They will have to rehouse them some distance away. If they rehouse them some distance from the site those people will have to pay, in addition to the increased rent, increased transport charges, which, again, are a direct result of the financial policy of the Government.

  2387
  The person who is affected by slum clearance, who has a lower rent and lower income, will have to pay the higher rent and increased transport charges. The knowledge of that will deter even the most enthusiastic of local authorities from going ahead with a slum clearance programme.
  The Parliamentary Secretary talked about overspill. In exactly the same way as local authorities have been dealing with slum clearance, and dealing with it effectively up to now, they have been dealing with overspill. Authorities like the L.C.C., with their out-county estates, from 1945,onwards have done a magnificent job of work not only in the scope and conception of their schemes but in the architectural standards and layout which they have adopted in those schemes. They are a credit to the London County Council and a credit to local government activity. Hundreds of thousands of people have been rehoused outside the area of the London County Council, and this has been going on all over the country too.
  As a Londoner, I am, naturally, very proud of the L.C.C., although even I had to go out into Hertfordshire at the end of the war before I could get housed; but the same thing has been going on in other areas, for example, in Lancashire and Staffordshire, where there has been magnificent co-operation between, If I might so term them, the minor authorities —the rural, urban and borough councils —and the county council itself. In these cases the county council, because of the lack of enthusiasm by the Tory Government, has taken on responsibilities which are not normally accepted by county councils. I hope that many other county councils will adopt a similar course.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is not in his place, because I am paying him a compliment. He is at least open and honest I would far rather have a man who says what he thinks, so that we know where he stands, than somebody who is sanctimoniously hypocritical, such as the Minister and the Government on this matter.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. I do not think that that should be said here.
  Mr. Lindgren: If that is unparliamentary, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I withdraw it. May I say that I much prefer the attitude of the noble Lord to that of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary? I say that because the noble Lord says what he means, whereas the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary say one thing, but mean another.
  During the Committee stage, the noble Lord said that the Bill which became the Town Development Act, 1952, was found on the desk of the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the Minister took office in 1951, and that it was a Bill which was intended to be introduced by the Labour Government had it remained in office. That is perfectly true. The noble Lord said that the Government never had any enthusiasm for the Town Development Bill. I can confirm that, for it was my privilege to have a considerable amount to do with its Committee stage. It was obvious, at least to those of us with local government experience, that the Government introduced it only as a piece of window dressing, even in 1952; and that kind of thing has happened since.
  There has been large-scale argument between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and various local authorities. Certain authorities, such as the London County Council, who have done good work in normal out-county schemes, and others who have done good work in out-borough schemes, who have been anxious to use schemes, have been trying to negotiate with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government reasonable terms on which to undertake the work, but it was only a comparatively short time ago that they got even the concession of the 50 per cent. towards water and sewerage.
  I can quote the instance of the borough with which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is concerned. I have a cutting from the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph of 10th February—again, I am certain it will be in the files of the Ministry—in which some remarks by the Chairman of the Kettering Borough Council are reported—not that I believe that everything reported in the Press is correct, but for the purposes of this debate we will assume that this is correct; certainly, as it suits me to do so. The Chairman of

  2389
  the Kettering Borough Council is reported as saying that the overspill plans are now "frozen."
  I say quite frankly to the Minister—I hope he will deal with this when he replies —that the London County Council in particular has been negotiating with more than a score of authorities and has reached the point of agreement, but that only one of those authorities is now still biting. That is Swindon, because it has the great resources of the borough that it is. It is not that the smaller rural and urban districts have any antagonism towards the L.C.C., for there has been very happy co-operation between the L.C.C. and the receiving authorities; they have been anxious to take the people and the L.C.C. has been most generous in its terms to them. What worries these local authorities is the increased interest charges going up to 5¼ and 5½ per cent.
  It is true that in the Bill the subsidy of £22 1s. or the £24 is being maintained, but it must be remembered that this is a reduction on what was previously available. Over and above this, however, there are all the other developments such as water, sewerage, roads, lighting, expansion of services, refuse collection and the rest, on which there is considerable expenditure by local authorities and on which they must pay the higher interest charge of 5¼ and 5½ per cent. These smaller authorities simply cannot afford to risk taking the overspill and bearing the rate burden that is likely to arise in the first ten or fifteen years at these higher interest rates. So we find that the overspill scheme is already dead, except in the case of an odd scheme such as that I have mentioned between the L.C.C. and Swindon.
  Borough councils like the Kettering Borough Council, whose Chairman admits his concern that the scheme is "frozen," are anxious that schemes should go on. Their failure to continue with them is not due to any lack of desire or unwillingness on the part of the London County Council or the Kettering Borough Council to participate but is because of the lack of enthusiasm and help given by Government Departments. To be fair to the Chairman of the Kettering Borough Council, he does not single out the Minister and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government alone for his criticism. His criticism is equally
  2390
  against the Board of Trade, which shows no enthusiasm for giving assistance in regard to housing.
  To sum up, this is a shocking Bill. It is an attack on the living standards of the working people. It means higher rents for existing houses. It means an even further attack, I am certain, on the standards of housing construction. It puts a penalty on the provision of housing for general need by the most wealthy of authorities and makes rural house building almost prohibitive for those authorities who already have the greatest number of houses.
  Equally, the Bill means that there will not be the emphasis on slum clearance that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have asserted and it will mean an increased expenditure in dealing with overspill. It will mean that overspill will be almost at a standstill and we shall go back to the old conception, which those of us associated with local government do not like, of out-county and out-borough building.
  I close as I began. The Government have no authority for this Bill. It is not acceptable to those—the local authorities —who have to operate it. It is not acceptable to the people of the country, and in the by-elections whose results have been announced today we see that the Government are losing face even in the areas which have been most favourable to them. I suggest that the Government should resign so that we can put in their place a Government who have the welfare of the country and of the people at heart.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: In a rather lengthy but, as we expect from him, vigorous speech the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has manifested the fact that the Opposition have still not learned during all the proceedings on the Bill any of the compelling reasons for the appearance of the Bill in the first place.
  The hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks by saying that we had no authority to bring the Bill forward, but, of course, we had. We had the compelling authority of the economic situation which, unless it is dealt with, will mean the continuance of inflation further, a deterioration in the standard of living of our people, and an open-ended commitment for the Treasury,

  2391
  which must be met by the taxpayers, and which we can, none of us, look on with equanimity. That, I suggest, is the real reason not only for the Bill, but also for the other economic measures affecting local authority expenditure, and particularly expenditure on housing.
  I want to answer some of the criticisms which the hon. Member has put forward today. The first I take is one which was prevalent in the speeches made by Members of the Opposition on Second Reading, during the Committee on the Bill and upon Report of the Bill. It is the argument that the Bill means the end of building by local authorities for general need. I thought it was rather interesting to notice that the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who was so vigorous and so dogmatic about this on Second Reading, had changed the tune somewhat. On Second Reading he was most categorical that the Bill would mean "the complete end" of general need building. Today, he told us that it would mean that general need building would only "diminish."
  I think that the hon. Member has realised during the weeks that have passed since Second Reading, and, no doubt, as a result of a perusal of the paper by the Leader of the Opposition to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, that the Bill certainly does not mean the end of general need building but means a reasonable check upon building for general need in accordance with what any local authority thinks is necessary in its own area. The hon. Member quoted the case of a local authority—in Kent, I think it was.
  Mr. Lindgren: East Ashford.
  Mr. Hay: He pointed out that there was a waiting list of more than a hundred people and that the local authority intended to stop general need building altogether. I hope that that council has second thoughts about it, but even if it does not, it would be interesting to know how many of the hundred people on the waiting list are waiting in what are called, for the purposes of this argument, slums —slums and other unfit houses.
  Mr. Lindgren: So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me explain that it was indicated in the Press report, in the Evening Standard, that it was because of the Government's present housing
  2392
  policy, not because there are any slums in that area.
  Mr. Hay: My point is that there are a great many local authorities which have what appear to be long waiting lists, but that many of the people whose names are on the waiting lists are people housed in unsatisfactory conditions. That may well be so in the case of East Ashford. 'Whether that argument is right or wrong, L think the point to be made is that it is for the local council itself to decide whether it should continue with general need building or not.
  We heard a fine capitalistic argument from the hon. Member just now, when he was talking about the local authorities, saying that the amount of the subsidy is to be so much reduced, and that the interest charges they would have to pay would be so heavy, which would make it more or less compulsive on them to stop building for slum clearance. I have always understood—I think it is perfectly true—that most local authorities do not act in these matters on financial grounds alone. If a local authority—say, a large town—has an acute slum clearance problem, then, if the local councillors are worth anything at all, they will put their full weight behind a slum clearance drive because they know there is an urgent social need to be met, and they will not add up with such nicety all these figures the hon. Member has mentioned, to make quite certain that they are going to break even without putting a penny on the rates.
  I think there is another argument we can use in support of the claim that general needs building can continue, namely, that it is perfectly open to any local authority which wishes to go on building for general need to make up either the whole or some part of what it loses in the Exchequer subsidy out of the rate fund. The other part, I suggest, it can make up by pooling rents, by spreading rents, and by introducing a differential rent relief scheme. As my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear on Second Reading, this Measure does intend that the local authorities should pool subsidies where they can and should introduce such rent relief schemes.
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member keeps talking about pooling subsidies, but they are not pooling subsidies. Subsidy is already pooled. What they are doing

  2393
  is to spread the consequence of lack of subsidy and the increased interest charges over the houses which already exist.
  Mr. Hay: That is the same point as I was making. Perhaps I put it badly, but that was What I had in mind. I do not think, therefore, for these reasons and for a number of others, that the Bill will mean the end of building for general need.
  I turn now to another argument that was put by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, one of which we have heard much during these debates. It is that the Bill and the increase in interest charges, and so on, is some sort of "bankers' ramp."[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently, that remark meets with the approval of hon. Members opposite. It is a contemptible charge, and when the hon. Member for Wellingborough thinks about these things a little more carefully he will realise, I am sure, that the Government have not introduced increased interest charges to put money into the pockets of their friends but because the credit of this country has been getting out of hand, too much public money has been spent and is continuing to be spent on investment, and that some halt must be called wherever possible.
  Mr. Lindgren: Will not the hon. Member agree that the Labour Government recognised the need for some measure of control, and that they did control the resources of the country and directed them to the best means, and yet were able equally to maintain the interest charges at reasonable rates for the sake of the service which money provides for housing, and so on? The Tory Party had a policy of, "Set the people free," and in so far as that policy has set free the bankers it has meant increased charges. Is it accidental that in the time of the Labour Government interest rates were from 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. and that under a Tory Government they are now 5½ per cent. and look like being 6 per cent.?
  Mr. Hay: That intervention serves only to underline the fundamental fact that the approach of the party opposite to these questions is so different from that which we on this side of the House take. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends would try to control an inflationary situation, such as that in which we are living today by all manner——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)rose ——
  Mr. Hay: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member keeps on mumbling and muttering.
  Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose——
  Mr. Hay: Well, I will give way if it is a reasonable intervention.
  Mr. Lewis: I was trying to point out that there had not been more than two or three hon. Members on the Government side here for the debate until the Whips went out to get a few more in. That shows how much interest hon. Members opposite have in the Bill.
  Mr. Hay: That intervention is as contemptible as the argument with which I was dealing.
  Mr. Lewis: But it is true.
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is not necessary for every hon. Member of the House to be in the Chamber all the time.
  Let me get back to the hon. Member for Wellingborough. He underlined the difference of approach which divides the two sides of the House. The party opposite would try to control an inflationary situation by physical controls, as it did with inconspicuous success when in office, whereas we on this side of the House prefer the more successful method of monetary and fiscal control.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss inflation on Third Reading?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That, I think, is linked up with the price of houses.
  Mr. Hay: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) seldom gets to his feet without being inaccurate.
  This is no "bankers' ramp" which has increased interest charges. The Bill is intended to provide a piece which will fit into the general structure of control of inflation and reduction of taxation. I am certain that the ordinary man in the street, when faced with this whole question of housing subsidies, will have considered a figure of £107 million a year to be rather in excess of what we

  2395
  ought to pay. The Government are at present under pressure from a number of quarters to reduce Government expenditure. The Bill limits an increase in subsidies. We are not making substantial reductions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No. Hon. Members should remember the facts. We are imposing a limit on further increases of subsidies which would have taken place had the Bill never seen the light of day. That is worth remembering.
  A point of which we have not today heard very much from the hon. Member for Wellingborough, though his hon. Friends have made it frequently, is that the net result of the Bill will be enormously increased rents which the people cannot afford to pay. I had the opportunity the other day of getting hold of a copy of the National Income and Expenditure Accounts for 1954. The figures for 1955 are not yet fully available. I found that in 1954 the nation spent £842 million on alcoholic drink, £855 million on tobacco, and £297 million on recreational goods, that is, books, newspapers, magazines, and other things. It spent £187 million on entertainments. The total that it spent on rent, rates, and water charges together was only £811 million. I say that those figures should make anyone think when it is said that people cannot afford to pay a little more for their rent.
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member is including in his figures the whole expenditure and forgetting that that represents expenditure not only by persons occupying rented properties but by those in higher income groups, who are generally owner-occupiers. Those with higher incomes tend to spend more on these things than do the workers. The council house tenant has a pint of beer when frequently the owner-occupier has a double whisky, and that makes a difference to the cost.
  Mr. Hay: It takes many double whiskies to reach a total of £842 million. There is no evidence that the people have not the money or that they will be hard put to it to pay more rent, while they are spending money on that scale on nonessentials.
  We need to get back to some order of priorities. The three important priorities in an ordinary family should
  2396
  be, first, enough money for food, then enough money for shelter, and, finally, enough money for clothing. These are the ordinary priorities which we all observe in our daily lives, but we are getting into a situation in which people are looking not to those priorities but to whether they have something left over for their shelter after they have paid for everything else. This may sound hard doctrine, even Elizabethan, as was said on the benches opposite last night of the words of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke). But we must get back to it before we can reach a stage at which our prosperity and national standard of living are soundly based.
  I do not believe, therefore, that the hon. Member for Wellingborough is right when he says that the tenants of council houses will not be able to pay increased rents which may result from the Bill. The capacity to pay is there, and it can be done. I also believe that the fact that the Bill enables the differential rents schemes, to which the Minister has frequently referred, to be brought into effect rapidly will help to mitigate the worst burden on those least able to bear it.
  The Bill has four major objectives which should commend it to the House. First, it is designed as a useful Measure to check the rising level of subsidies and bring something towards the relief of taxation. Secondly, it is designed to concentrate the subsidy on the real objectives. We have been in danger in our debates of forgetting that the purpose of subsidies is to help those who cannot afford to pay an economic rent. Therefore, if the Bill does something to bring reality closer, it is a Measure which the House ought to pass.
  So, thirdly, the Bill relates the subsidy to the ability of the person to pay, because it enables subsidies to be spread. Although there is a reduction, that reduction is graduated in such a way that the general effect is not one of hardship. There are powers in the Bill to enable the Minister to make special grants in special cases. Further, it should be remembered that the Bill will help to contribute to a fall in building costs.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said something about this on

  2397
  Second Reading. It will be found that when one reduces the level of subsidies, efficiency is created and building costs fall. The hon. Member for Wellingborough complained that building costs were going up. He gave that as a reason why local authorities would find it more difficult to carry on with their general building. He will, I believe, find that the converse will be the case. In 1920, 1927 and 1933, when subsidies were decreased, building costs fell. I think that we can repeat that process now.
  All in all, I regard this as a Bill to inject some measure of realism and health into our housing finance and for that reason I support it. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through another place and reach the Statute Book quickly.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), that "overcrowded" constituency, has made a much more realistic speech than the Parliamentary Secretary did in moving the Third Reading of the Bill. I apologise for not having been able to take as much part in the earlier stages of the Bill as I should have liked, owing to family illness, but I find the Bill on Third Reading just as objectionable as I found it on Second Reading. Very little change in it has been made. The hon. Member for Henley has very rightly pointed out the major purpose of the Bill. I regard it as having being sired by a Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present Government, whether the past or the present Chancellor I could not care.
  The Bill is intended, above all, to reduce public expenditure and to attack inflation by means of an attack on public capital building, namely, housing. What nauseates me is the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary attempting to make out a case for this wretched Bill on the ground that it heralds a great new campaign for general house building which really aspires to all the decrees of famous propagandists of the past, and not very long past either.
  It is undoubtedly true that this is part of traditional Tory policy of dealing with the inflationary danger by attempting by direct financial measures—and by physical measures as well if the former do not suffice—to cut down the public element of expenditure wherever possible. It is
  2398
  as part of that policy that I regard this Bill as so thoroughly objectionable. The hon. Member for Henley rightly dispelled much of the cloud of fairy talk that we have heard from the Front Bench opposite when he made clear what were the financial intentions of this Bill. After all, the Bill was announced as being part of a series of financial measures, and, therefore, it is not surprising that it should fit in so tightly and closely with the pattern of Government policy in relation to restraint on public development.
  Of all the nauseating things we have heard from the Government Front Bench nothing has been more nauseating than the reiteration in almost every other sentence by the Minister of his claim that he is providing a new incentive for slum clearance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said, this is an utter misuse of terms. One has to go back to "Alice in Wonderland" to get any comparison for the misuse and new definition of words as used by the Minister in this connection.
  Humpty Dumpty used words for his own purposes and so does the Minister. What he means when he talks about incentive is that he is not reducing one subsidy in the same respect as in others. That is the positive incentive. I think there is a danger if in this House we fall into the habit of misusing well-known expressions in our language and such defamation of it ought not to be tolerated. Yet the Minister simulated indignation whenever he was interrupted with suggestions that the use of the word "incentive" was wholly misleading in these circumstances.
  The Minister is certainly a born actor, whatever else he is, and no doubt a great advantage to the Government Front Bench in that respect. The fact remains that to carry out the major purpose of the Government this Bill is designed to cut down as severely as possible general house building for general housing needs.
  I was interested in the interchange between the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when the hon. Gentleman was challenged as to whether the Conservative Party still believed in the necessity for building for general need. The Parliamentary Secretary said

  2399
  that he still so believed. But I think the Government benches interpret that word very differently from the way in which we interpret it on this side of the House. We have always taken the view that it is the responsibility of the local authorities not merely to concern themselves with the needs of a certain narrow section of the community, but with the housing needs of the community as a whole. We believe that local authorities should not be concerned purely with those who are in the direst financial straits, but with the broader housing needs of the community which they are there to serve.
  That was fundamental and was emphasised when my right hon. Friend introduced the 1949 Housing Bill, by withdrawing the words "working classes" from previous legislation. No one could easily define the term "working classes" except to say, perhaps, that it does not apply to certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that would be rather too offensive to say.
  It is clear that this Bill attempts to narrow the scope of local government housing work. In effect, it attempts to tell the local authorities that they should concern themselves only with a limited sphere of housing work, the kind within which private enterprise housing cannot hope to make any individual profits, the kind which is bound to be a dead loss to the local authorities. That kind, together with the drains, the local authorities can cheerfully continue to carry out according to the Bill. But the broader scope of housing responsibiltiy, that of tackling the housing needs of those in different spheres and occupations, is not regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as being the proper function, duty and responsibility of local authorities.
  It is clear that the Bill attempts so to narrow the functions and responsibilities of local authorities in housing as to make them little more than the providers of localised slum clearance estates. That is the danger of withdrawing subsidies, either in whole or in part; and I would regard the present slum clearance subsidy as being in part a withdrawal because it is to be at a reduced level at a time when charges and costs are going up at the instance of the Government.
  If local authorities are to be limited narrowly, is it not obvious that they will
  2400
  also be under strong pressure steadily to reduce standards of accommodation? If the available subsidy is reduced, if they are not able to undertake the wider scope of housing provision which they were able to undertake before, is it not inevitable that they will be faced either with stopping house building altogether or if they are anxious to continue it, as in most cases we hope they will, they may be-more and more under pressure to reduce standards?
  Already there are plenty of complaints about the reduced standards from which we are suffering as a result of Tory party policy, so that in addition to a limitation of the proper scope of local government activity there is also continuous driving pressure upon local authorities to reduce standards.
  The most tragic thing of all is the obvious lack of concern by Her Majesty's Government for any wide social approach to the problem of housing and housing need. All the time an effort is made to look at certain elements of housing policy in isolation, whether slum clearance or other features. One cannot isolate slum clearance problems from related housing problems such as overcrowding, repair and improvement, and redevelopment. They are all part of one problem. A local authority which attempts to deal with one in isolation from the others is not giving its community proper service.
  In fact, a local authority has a wider issue than that before it. It ought not to be looking at its housing problem in isolation from the general welfare, health and other services which it has to provide. Time after time in our debates we have been given instances to show how the Government's attitude towards housing is unrelated to any appreciation at all of the health needs of the community. For example, reference has been made in Committee to the problems of old people and our great fear that one of the results of the Bill will be a limitation of the activities of local authorities with regard to housing for old people, not merely the building of bungalows for them but the provision of housing together with other necessary services for old people.
  That might well constitute a vital contribution to the solution of the problem of some old people who are at present, unhappily, in hospitals, overcrowded as they are, when they might be better cared

  2401
  for without hospital attention at all. The Bill does not recognise the existence of such problems. The fact that there is in our hospitals such a very high proportion of single people compared with the number of married people who are in hospital shows the value and importance of providing family or community services to meet the needs of people whom might otherwise be stranded on their own and forced to make a call upon hospital accommodation, which may be the last thing that they ought to have.
  Those are part of what I regard as the social needs of housing policy, which the Bill simply tears to bits. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Henley for stripping the Bill of a lot of the unnecessary wrappings and reminding us that it is a Measure designed to reduce Government expenditure and make an attack upon public capital expenditure. That is the object of the Bill, and that is why I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will vote unanimously against it and why I dare to hope that one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have some social conscience will join us in the Division Lobby.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) simulated surprise and gratitude at both the commencement and end of his speech at discovering that the Bill is a financial Measure. Of course it is a financial Measure, and, as such, it will bring considerable advantage in the present economic situation. The point is whether, in bringing about economic advantages, it will cause any hardship to the people particularly concerned, those in overcrowded housing conditions, those living in slum conditions, and those on long housing waiting lists.
  Reading the arguments put forward during Committee by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the score that the Bill will create great hardship, I feel that a lot has been made of very little. If one examines the figures, the Bill will not have such a tremendous effect on actual house building or on rents as many hon. Members opposite have suggested. It is estimated that more than 300,000 houses will be built in Great Britain this year.
  Mr. Lindgren: Not local authority houses.
  Mr. Page: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go steadily through my figures. I said "houses" and "Great Britain." I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member to interrupt me when I mention the figure 300,000, of which my hon. Friends and I are rather proud.
  It is estimated that 300,000 houses or more will be built in Great Britain this year. Of that number, about 260,000 will be in England and Wales, and it is those with which we are dealing in the Bill. Of the 260,000, some 150,000–160,000 will be local authority built, with about 100,000 being built by private enterprise. The Government have expressed their determination that 60,000–70,000 of the 160,000 shall be replacement of slum houses; that is to say, they will have the full subsidy.
  I obtained the figure of 60,000–70,000 houses a year to replace slum houses as a result of the promise read out by the Parliamentary Secretary in his peroration to the effect that the Government are determined to rehouse 200,000 slum dwellers a year. On the basis of an average of three persons per family, one obtains a figure of 60,000–70,000 houses a year in England and Wales qualifying for the full subsidy.
  The response of the local authorities to the Government's expression of determination was to produce their own figures to show that they would demolish 375,000 houses over the next five years. Hon. Members will recollect the document entitled "Slum Clearance," in which the figures for each local authority are set out, and which shows a possible total slum clearance over the next five years amounting to 375,000 houses. That is a little better than the Government promise. It works out at some 75,000 houses a year to replace demolished slum houses and to qualify for full subsidy.
  If the local authorities continue at their present building rate of 160,000 houses per year, 75,000 of which will be subsidised at the full rate, we are left with 85,000 houses on reduced subsidy. Of course, many of the 75,000 will receive an enhanced subsidy under the special provisions of the Act. It should be borne in mind that the subsidy is not payable only for the replacement of slum houses but is also payable under the special provisions relating to flats and expensive sites.

  2403
  To return to my figures, if we deduct 75,000 from 160,000, we are left with 85,000. In addition to the 75,000 houses a year which will attract the full subsidy, we can estimate that the new towns will continue to expand at approximately the present rate, which is about 20,000 houses a year; and these houses, too, will receive the full subsidy under the Bill. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is still following my figures, he will see that we shall have 95,000 houses a year on the full subsidy.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: Not after five years.
  Mr. Page: That is the position under the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) may be prophesying some future change in the subsidy, but let us deal with the figures for this year.
  We have, therefore, 95,000 houses a year on the full subsidy, plus a few more under Clause 3 (3, c) which the House discussed on Report yesterday. This leaves us with 65,000 houses a year on a reduced subsidy, if local authorities continue to build at their present rate of 160,000 houses a year.
  That figure may not be correct. It may need to be very much less, because, first, there has been a rapidly increasing rate of private enterprise building. Since 1952 the average increase in private enterprise building in England and Wales has been about 25,000 houses a year and there is no reason why that should not continue.
  Mr. Lindgren: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by the building societies yesterday that private enterprise building of new houses is decreasing and that the price of existing houses is increasing because of the increased cost of new houses and the diminishing number of new houses?
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Wellingborough will recollect that the figures on which the building societies base their statement were greatly reduced last year by reason of the fact that the building societies held up advances for two months. It is also common knowledge that building prices rose last year. The hon. Member may not have noticed, however, that an announcement was made
  2404
  by a very large building firm of a reduction of £300 in the price of the £2,500 class of house.
  Mr. Gibson: The Co-operative Building Society.
  Mr. Page: I do not recollect the name off-hand, but I am told that it is the Co-operative Building Society. It is an example of what my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said a few moments ago—that if we take off subsidies there will be a decrease in the cost of house building. That has been shown to be the case on previous occasions and it will be the case on this occasion.
  Mr. Sparks: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in that statement, because he is leaving out of consideration one of the most important factors in the capital cost of house building—the rate of interest. The increase in the rate of interest in the last year has led to a rise equivalent to an increase in rents in my constituency of 8s. a week. These are still rising. Even private enterprise housing schemes which have to borrow capital for this purpose are paying much more in interest than they paid in the past, and that is bound to be reflected in the cost of new houses and in rents.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) can express his opinion. He is prophesying about the future. I express my opinion that there will be a reduction in the cost of private enterprise house building and that this will be reflected in the cost of local authority building so that local authorities will be able to build at lower rates.
  May I return to the argument which I was endeavouring to follow out? I said that private enterprise building had increased at a rate of 25,000 houses a year, that there seemed to be no reason that it should not continue to increase at that rate, and that in a short while it will take over a great part of the 65,000 houses a year which local authorities need to build for general needs.
  This Bill does not prevent local authorities from building for general needs. The intention of the Bill is to persuade local authorities to concentrate on building for those who are now living in slum conditions. Perhaps it is simplifying the matter a little too much to say that private enterprise will take over the greater

  2405
  part of housing for general needs. It may be said that private enterprise does not erect the small house which is so necessary for those on the waiting lists, but the record of private enterprise in that respect has not been too bad in the last few years.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Member represents a neighbouring constituency; Bootle adjoins Crosby. I followed his figures with interest. Would he tell the House what percentage of the 100,000 houses provided by private enterprise are provided for sale, what percentage for letting and what percentage for slum clearance?
  Mr. Page: I have taken the advice of the hon. Member for Wellingborough and not "played about" with percentages. I therefore would not give the percentages for which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) asked if I knew them. I have not those figures at my finger tips.
  The hon. Gentleman has, however, raised a most interesting point in saying that he comes from a neighbouring constituency. In fact, we have swapped an urban district council; the Litherland Urban District Council which used to be in his constituency is now in mine. In that urban district there is no private enterprise building; all the building is concentrated on rehousing those from slum or near-slum conditions.
  Mr. Sparks: Private enterprise could do that.
  Mr. Page: In the neighbouring constituency of Crosby entirely different conditions apply. In the Borough of Crosby, which is only next door, almost the whole of the building programme can be carried out by private enterprise. There are entirely different conditions.
  I want once again to return to the probable increase in the rate of private enterprise building over the next few years, provided that local authorities are prepared to be reasonable over mortgage advances and the guarantees of building society mortgages. Some local authorities have been reasonable, but some have not. If they are reasonable, then the purchase of a house built by private enterprise is a good proposition, not only for the builder but for the family on the waiting list.
  Mr. Lindgren: Would the hon. Member agree that a person who accepts an obligation to repay a loan over 20 to 30 years ought to be assured that he is in a position to meet that obligation? If so, how is a wage earner to be assured, particularly with Tories in Government, that next week, next month or next year he will still be employed?
  Mr. Page: I am sure that if I followed that argument I would be called to order. The hon. Member seems to be asking me whether I can guarantee a wage to a man for the next 20 years.
  Mr. Lindgren: The man has to guarantee the repayments.
  Mr. Page: Certainly he does; so does the man who takes a rented house have to guarantee paying the rent. He could go to another rented place, but he would have to pay the rent there. What is the difference between entering into an obligation to pay rent and entering into an obligation to pay mortgage instalments?
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Surely, the difference to hon. Members in his profession and mine is perfectly clear; in one case one loses all one's invested capital, which may have taken years to save, and in the other one loses no capital.
  Mr. Page: The legal difference is perfectly clear to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and to me, but there is no practical difference between paying rent and paying a mortgage for 20 years.
  May I once more endeavour to return to the points I was making? The slum clearance estimates which were given by the local authorities were, of course, made prior to the publication of the Bill. The estimates gave the figure of 375,000 houses to be demolished over five years and gave a further figure of 850,000 houses which could be classed as fit for demolition and, therefore, in the slum class. When these figures were drawn up, there was no incentive to local authorities to stretch themselves to clear the slums.
  Mr. Lindgren: More than there is now.
  Mr. Page: Local authorities are now bound to consider it again, and instead of the 75,000 houses a year which they were

  2407
  to clear, they may wish to increase that figure. It may well be increased to about 100,000 a year.
  Mr. Lindgren: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Member. It is very good of him to give way. We should get this clear. He talks about incentives, when these slum clearance programmes were accepted by the local authorities, they were accepted on the basis of a subsidy of £26 14s. from the Treasury. They will now get only £22 1s. How can that be called an inducement? It is a reduction of £4 13s.
  Mr. Page: I am not ashamed to call this a stick and not a carrot. It is true that the carrot has been taken away from one type of building and left on the other. Local authorities will especially study Clause 3 (3) and see how they can bring their programmes into that provision and so get the full subsidy. Undoubtedly, they will again consider whether it is advisable to clear more slums and use more of their building programmes as replacements of slums.
  May I for a moment return to the two local authorities which I mentioned a short time ago, Crosby and Litherland, both of which are in my constituency, but whose housing programmes are so different? The Crosby Borough Council listed 122 houses as unfit, a very small figure when compared with that of some constituencies. Crosby is predominantly an owner-occupier area, and private enterprise can cope with practically the whole of the building programme. Next door is the Litherland Urban District Council, which has listed 331 unfit houses. It has said it will deal with only 171 over the first five years. When the effect of the Bill is realised, I believe that the Litherland Council will say that it will clear all 331 unfit houses in that five years.
  Furthermore it will also be encouraged to replace them by building on the same sites. Hon. Members will note that Clause 6 gives certain advantages to rebuilding on the sites. I hope that local authorities will appreciate the advantage and that builders and local authorities will develop the technique of progressive demolition, a technique of building one end of the street while pulling down the other end. Many families do not want to move from the areas in which they and
  2408
  their parents have lived for generations. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said earlier, they live in those areas because they are near their work. Some may be on shift work. They also live there because they have been there for many years and do not want to move into the country. I hope that local authorities and builders will develop the technique of building on the site, without disturbing more families than absolutely necessary, so that those families can be rehoused on the same site. The sort of development of which I am thinking is in those areas where there are two-storey terraced houses which could be redeveloped into five-storey flats so that one can rehouse these people right away on the site where they have lived.
  May I return to the "skirmish," shall I call it, over paragraph (c) during the debate on the Report stage yesterday. That is the paragraph dealing with overspill and is closely related to what I have been saying. In hoping that that paragraph might have been taken out of the Bill hon. Members on this side of the House did not want to prevent genuine slum clearance and the rehousing of slum dwellers. If that paragraph is intended for that purpose, to rehouse slum dwellers, perhaps at a distance, and is not meant to provide a loophole in the principles of the Bill—is not intended to be used for housing for general needs— we should have no objection. But at the moment it seems just a loophole, and there would appear to be a possibility that it could be used to defeat the main object of the Bill which is to concentrate the efforts of local authorities on slum clearance. I ask my hon. Friend to inquire of my right hon. Friend whether he will give an undertaking that paragraph (c) will be used only for genuine slum clearance.
  Mr. Sparks: Paragraph (c) may or may not apply to slum clearance schemes. It may be possible for a local authority to acquire land in the area of another local authority in order to develop its slum clearance scheme. But it would retain possession of the land and the tenants would be responsible to it. A number of local authorities object to that. They say that if people are coming into their area, they want them to be integrated with the whole population. The Town Development Act achieves that purpose,

  2409
  among other things. It means that the importing and exporting authorities agree to send a certain number of people to a new area and the local authority to whose area they are going controls the houses and rents by agreement.
  Mr. Page: I appreciate that procedure. I was saying that I wish to see this Bill operated so as to concentrate the efforts of local authorities on slum clearance and the rehousing of slum dwellers.
  I believe that if paragraph (c) is used to excess, it will defeat that object. That is why I asked whether the Minister will give an undertaking that it will be used only for slum clearance schemes, or in the case of exceptional congestion such as was referred to on Report stage by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). I wish to see the provisions relating to overspill used only for that purpose so that local authorities may concentrate their efforts on the social welfare of the clearance of the slums.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in this debate. He mentioned house purchases and slum clearance schemes in areas adjacent to his, and I wish to say that there is no comparison between living conditions in my constituency and in his. Is there any reason why the people of Litherland should be housed in flats of six, seven, eight, nine and ten storeys, while two miles away, in Crosby, there are buildings with not so many storeys and the houses are built six or seven to the acre? I cannot see the reason for the difference. The people are no different. They are merely unfortunate enough to have to live and work in that place. The basic difference between hon. Members on this side of the House and those on the Government benches is made clear by our different attitudes towards these people. I regard the housing of the people of this country as a Christian duty which is to a great extent the responsibility of the Government.
  I congratulated the Government when they achieved their target of 300,000 houses even though I said that I abhorred the reduction in housing standards. In my own town we have not been able to build houses for sale. Since the war only
  2410
  50 houses have been built for sale in Bootle. At present, there are 4,000 postwar houses built to let by the local authority. There are practical reasons why we cannot build houses for sale or depend on private enterprise to help to solve the problem of slum clearance.
  A house built for sale costs £1,800 and a young married couple need a deposit of £180 which, in many cases, they do not possess. With mortgage and interest repayments the total to be paid amounts to £2,711, which has to be earned by the man with his hands or brain. He does not receive it by way of rent interest or profit. The weekly repayment works out at £2 12s. 2d. and the estimated weekly rates are 10s. 6d. making a total of £3 2s. 8d.
  I would ask the hon. Member for Crosby whether he knows the average wage of a docker living in his constituency. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred to whisky drinking— that gives an indication of the level of the debate—but I wish to ask the hon. Member for Crosby whether he knows what is the average wage of a docker in his constituency.
  Mr. Page": The average basic wage of a docker is about £8 10s. a week, but there are few who go home with less than £15 in their pocket.
  Mr. Mahon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that. At least he has committed himself. I say that the average is £10 a week.
  With all the difficulties facing a young married man, including the heavy cost of furniture, how can he be expected to pay £3 2s. 8d. a week for a house? It is just impossible. Therefore, we must dismiss the possibility of relying on private enterprise to provide houses to meet the general need and slum clearance schemes.
  Mr. Page: I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member that in his constituency and in part of mine it is impossible to rely on private enterprise to build small houses for sale. I was trying to point out that right next door there is a different type of area where it is possible to rely almost entirely on private enterprise and, to a great extent, that has been done. Of course, there must be local authority building in the Bootle area, but I suggest that in Clause 6 of the Bill there are special provisions for flats.
  Mr. Mahon: I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am making the point that it is impossible for us to rely on private enterprise to any great extent to extricate our people from their great housing needs.
  There are 13 million houses in England and Wales, of which 847,112 are estimated as being unfit. Local authorities estimate that 375,000 houses should be demolished. This is 75,000 houses a year, 15,000 more, as the hon. Gentleman said, than the Minister stated in reply to a Question which I addressed to him. The right hon. Gentleman said 60,000 houses and 200,000 people.
  Out of 308,000 completions in 1954, 199,000 houses were built for local authorities and 88,000 for private owners. In addition, 21,000 were built for special purposes. With each succeeding year the number of houses built for local authorities is decreasing while the number built for private owners is increasing. Who gave the private entrepreneur social absolution? Is there not as much moral responsibility on the private builders of 100,000 houses to ease the circumstances of our people as there is on the local authorities who have to build 160,000 houses in order to meet their overall housing needs? We have had the position where the local authority with a total of 18,000 houses within its boundaries has had to meet all the social difficulties arising with its municipal building. The hon. Member for Crosby should not debate the question of housing again, because he does not understand it.
  I had my nose to the grindstone of housing when I came to this House. I know that people might say that I am being parochial, but housing is a parochial matter. It is a matter for consideration of the individual family. The people in the slum clearance area of Merseyside represent one-eighth of the total population of slum dwellers. About 350,000 of them are living in unfit houses. That places a tremendous burden on the local authorities of Merseyside. There is social absolution for private landlords and an absolution from slums in Bournemouth and Brighton. They have no responsibility, whereas Merseyside bears one-eighth of the total slum clearance problem.
  The financial aspect of slum clearance is, of course, important, but it is not
  2412
  nearly as important or difficult as the social aspect. When one embarks on slum clearance, one uncovers things which it was never thought existed. When we let in the social sunlight, problems appear which would never be apparent in the dark. Slum clearance is a serious social problem. I suggest that the average wage on Merseyside is £10 a week, but there are all sorts of people living in slum clearance areas. Some are barely existing. It is impossible to make a social success of housing by doing what is suggested here. One simply cannot move people paying 10s. and put them into the £2 5s. category. It will not work. As one hon. Member said, all that will happen is that they will double up. It defeats the social purpose.
  Housing is a subject nearest the heart of local government. I did not want to remain on the question of housing, but the people who sent me here expect me to say the things that I am saying. I will give some figures for 6th September, 1955, which was before the Government embarked upon the recent increases. For 83 houses, we paid an average of £1,264, plus £152 for site works, making a total of £1,416. That is about the average cost of an A.3 house. The estimated rateable value of an A.3 house is £20. After taking account of local government subsidy and of the central Government subsidy, the rent of an A.3 house is £1 4s. 7d. a week, plus rates of 9s. 11d. a week. After deducting the subsidies we were left with £1 14s. 6d. a week clear for rent and rates. The people talk about"£1 15s. clear."
  To make the financial proposition a success, we had to charge £1 4s. 5d. clear for the A.3 house, because it was all that the people could afford. Local authorities do not indulge in excessive charity, but they desire to make their efforts a social success. On an A.1 flat, the local authority was giving an annual subsidy of £10 1s. in addition to its own subsidy; £18 12s. 8d. on an A.2 house; £26 4s. 4d. on an A.3 house, and £41 7s. 11d. on an A.4 house over and above the normal £9 subsidy. That means that in Bootle —and this applies to a very great extent in Liverpool—without the panaceas which the Government are giving us, we should have to give an extra £1 a week on every house in order to make it a financial and social success.

  2413
  We should not under-estimate the difficulties facing local authorities at the moment. Though they are concerned about the removal of the general subsidy, they are even more concerned at the fact that the £10 given for general needs has already been offset by the increase in rates of interest. It has just gone, and the local authorities are saying, "You gave it to us, and then you raised the rate of interest until the £10 has been practically wiped out."
  We have made an examination of the position, and we find that on 1st June, 1946, the Public Works Loan Board rates for loans for five years, 5–15 years and 15 years plus were 1½ per cent., 2 per cent. and 2½per cent. On 3rd January, 1948, they were 2 per cent., 2½ per cent, and 3 per cent. On 10th November, 1951, they were 2 per cent. 3 per cent. and 3¾ per cent., and we were then getting a subsidy of £16 10s. On 9th February, 1952, the rates were 2¾ per cent., 3f per cent. and 4¼ per cent., and the subsidy was still £16 10s. These are important figures.
  On 20th October, 1953, the rates were 2⅝ per cent., 3½ per cent. and 4 per cent. On 4th June, 1954, they were 2¼ per cent., 3¼ per cent. and 3¾ per cent. On 1st March, 1955, the rates were 2⅛ per cent., 3¾ per cent. and 4 per cent., and the rate of the subsidy was then £26 14s. We had a reduction to some degree, and on 6th September, 1955, the rates were 4½ per cent. for five years and 5 per cent. for over five years, while the subsidy was £22 1s.
  Now we find ourselves in the position that the local authorities do not know where they are going. Last Friday night, I attended a meeting of a local authority —and I want the House to appreciate this—which for five years after the war could do nothing owing to the lack of sewerage, and yet had one of the gravest housing problems in the country. That authority lost those five years of building when it might have built at low costs and high standards.
  It is now faced with the situation that this year it has 1,060 houses in various stages of construction, which is a very great achievement for a town of 76,000 people, and it is a very extended building programme. The authority is not worried about this year. It is bound to get 850
  2414
  houses completed this year, but it is already considering the prospect that next year it will have to cut down considerably, because it will be unable to afford to proceed with them.
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, if he was going to consider the slum clearance problem, which is quite a severe social problem, he would not have to consider especially places like Merseyside and Glasgow. These are the figures for Liverpool. There are 204,000 houses in the city, and 88,000 of them are regarded as slums. In face of those figures, in my view, the whole of the argument advanced by the Minister completely falls to the ground. When local authorities are faced with such a position, they naturally ask the Government to assist them, because the Government are supposed to give them the tools with which to do the job. That is the position regarding the relationship between local and national Government; the Government of the day is supposed to assist the local authorities.
  We have an enormous problem on Merseyside, but all that I am able to say to the people of Merseyside is, "You will be in your slums in 25 years' time." The physical problem alone—-that of getting 350,000 people out of the slums—is big enough, without any financial restrictions on the local authority trying to do the job. I could extend this argument, but I just want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a few questions.
  Mr. Page: Has the hon. Gentleman considered Section 5 of the Act, which empowers the Minister in certain circumstances, to——
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: It does not mean a thing.
  Mr. Mahon: I have given every consideration to it, and I think I can say with every justification that it is a dead letter.
  Mr. Page: I was endeavouring to come to the assistance of the hon. Gentleman, if he needs it, and to say how very strongly I support his plea for special consideration for Merseyside.
  Mr. Mahon: I now want to ask a few questions. Here we have this Bill in its amended form. I had the pleasure of speaking on Second Reading, and I

  2415
  have listened with great attention to the details which have been given, from the technical point of view, as well as having a social interest in the first Bill to pass through this House since I came here. I am indebted to the House and to hon. Members in it for giving me an example of Parliamentary procedure in legislating so early in my Parliamentary career.
  What I want to know now is whom does this Bill help? Does it help the local authorities? Let the local authorities themselves answer, and they say, "No." Does it help the people who are on the waiting lists generally? They also answer "No." Does it help the ever-increasing number of old-age pensioners, who in a few years' time will be one-eighth of the people, who are faced with many pressing needs and difficulties and who should be allowed to retain their dignity in their old age?
  These are the people who are now living in back rooms and holes and corners, after making a solid contribution to the progress of this country. We are not doing the right thing by these people. Does this Bill help the people with requisitioned property, who also have difficulties of their own? It does not even help them, and I can speak with some authority in that matter.
  That is all I want to say. I can only describe the Bill as a Measure designed to extricate the Government from their financial difficulties, and as a hypocritical piece of class legislation.
  6.17 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: After the magnificent speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) has just made, it seems to me that the best thing the Government can do is to throw this Bill out of Parliament straight away. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend on stating so clearly and so movingly the practical housing problems of local authorities, and particularly the problem of local authorities in the industrial areas, in tackling the problem of slum clearance.
  I want, first, to return to what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said about the Bill. The hon. Gentleman tried to show that the Bill was not quite so bad as we had anticipated and that the subsidy cut was not universal. I hope
  2416
  that the hon. Gentleman will intervene if I am misrepresenting his argument. He said that the old subsidy still remained for slum clearance and certain types of new housing development, and that, by and large, he was not troubled about the likely reduction in new council house building, as distinct from slum clearance building, because private enterprise was gradually taking up the slack and private enterprise could cope with the housing problem, outside slum clearance and the new towns.
  As my hon. Friend has shown, the hon. Member for Crosby is being very optimistic about the financial benefits and the encouragement which the Bill gives to local authorities to clear away slums. Let us be quite clear, even in a Third Reading debate, that the whole of this Bill has to be seen against a pattern of rising costs and everything else, when housing subsidies ought to have been going up, not down. The utmost the Bill does is to prevent the subsidies for slum clearance from being slashed as all the other housing subsidies are to be slashed. My hon. Friend has stated in detail the difficulty which every local authority will find in coping with the slum clearance programme even with the subsidies provided in the Bill. The subsidies for slum clearance ought to be much higher.
  We might ask hon. Members opposite why they always concede that private enterprise must not be expected to cope with slum clearance. It is quite certain that there is not a private enterprise builder in the country who wants to tackle slum clearance—even with the Government subsidy—and let at a reasonable rent the new houses which he builds to people dispossessed from the slums. Having built the slums, private enterprise builders say, "We take away from ourselves all responsibility for slum clearance. Allow us to have the profitable part of new house building."
  The position is even worse than that, because private house builders will not be able to provide any houses for the workers at a reasonable rent. However, the steadily increasing interest charges and other charges which have been imposed on the cost of private house building under the present Government make it impossible for the worker to afford the high mortgage interest involved in buying himself a house. We fear that the Bill

  2417
  is as bad as we have tried to prove throughout the debates, despite the fact that the slum clearance subsidy remains.
  I now want to revert to one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). He carefully proved that the workers can afford any new rent increases which the Bill makes possible because they are spending so much money upon tobacco and beer. He quoted figures in support of his argument. I do not want to make the debating point that the bulk of what they spend upon tobacco and beer goes in taxes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it is unfair to mention the gross expenditure upon beer and tobacco without also mentioning the fact that beer drinkers and tobacco smokers are making a major contribution to the Exchequer. I regard that kind of argument as impertinent when it is put forward by a member of a party which protests at every Election that it believes in letting the people spend what they have just how they like, and which argues consistently that the rich man—who himself spends as much as he wants to upon beer and tobacco—is paying far to much in taxes.
  The hon. Member for Henley gave the Opposition the whole of its case against the Bill. He argued that the Bill's main purpose was anti-inflationary. The Bill can be anti-inflationary only if it reduces the number of houses built. If it does not do that—if, despite the Bill, the same number of slum clearance houses and other council houses are built, the only effect of the Bill will be to re-divide the respective contributions to the cost of those houses. It will shift some of the burden off the taxpayers and on to the tenants who rent the council houses.
  It will also alter the respective burdens of old council houses rentors and new council house rentors. This mere redistribution of income, which is the main purpose of the existence of the present Government, certainly has nothing to do with inflation. If the hon. Member for Henley is right in labelling this an anti-inflationary Measure, it can only be so because it prevents some council houses from being built. We believe that that will be its effect.
  There are two general patterns of Third Reading debates. In one the Opposition says that the Bill came to the House with certain good features but certain very
  2418
  shocking blemishes and, thanks to the patience and determination of the Opposition and the good sense, kindness and reasonableness of the Minister, the Opposition has licked the Bill into shape. The Minister then rises and thanks the Opposition for its contribution towards making the Bill the excellent Bill it is, and the whole debate ends in an atmosphere something like that in Shaw's "Apple Cart," where the whole Cabinet, except Proteus, sing "Auld Lang Syne."
  This is not one of those debates. This is one of the other kind. For this is a bad Bill. It came to the House a bad Bill, and it leaves the House almost exactly as it came in. Far from tidying up and remedying the defects in the Bill, the Opposition have had to fight a desperate battle in trying to shield little areas of housing development from the worst effects of the Bill. We have pleaded on behalf of blitzed cities, planned housing development, prefabricated houses, and so on, but the Minister has conceded surprisingly little.
  Even accepting the main purpose of the Bill for what it is, the cases which my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued so reasonably for special relief from the burden of the Bill—some of which any human Minister would have conceded—have been argued in vain. The Minister has reiterated again and again the basic principle of the Bill. It is, "This is a Bill to cut housing subsidies. This is a Bill to raise council house rents." Within two years the Bill will raise the rent of an ordinary council house by between 7s. and 10s. a week.
  Mr. Gibson: We shall be lucky if it is as little as that.
  Dr. King: Yes. As my hon. Friend says, we shall be lucky if it is as little as that.
  The defence put forward by the Minister, again and again, is that although it is true that the Bill adds to the rent of every new council house about 10s. a week, that increase must be shared among the older council houses, so that the increase will not be so much.
  Mr. Powell: I want to tell my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has been saying. Did he say that over the next two years the Bill will raise the rent of the average council house by between 7s. and 10s. a week?
  Dr. King: If the hon. Gentleman is at all worried, I will make my point clear. First of all, I said that by the end of two years—because by then the subsidy will have entirely gone—the rent of a new council house will have gone up by exactly the amount of the subsidy which is completely disappearing, which is between 8s. and 10s. a week.
  Mr. Powell: That is the theoretical rent, not the rent actually being charged.
  Dr. King: The hon. Member must know that we have been debating the Bill now for some months, and that each side knows the exact position. I can understand the misunderstanding which he is endeavouring to fall into. I have already said that the Government's argument is that the burden of between 7s. and 10s. a week on a new council house will have to be distributed over local authorities' present stocks of houses, which gives the hon. Member the comfortable argument that he wants, namely, that the average council house rent will not necessarily be raised by the amount imposed by the Bill.
  As I argued at an earlier stage, the simple fact is that the municipal housing programmes undertaken before and since the war will cushion the workers from the nakedly cruel effects of this Measure. Were it not for the vast pool of council houses that have been built its effect on the worker taking a new council house would indeed be calamitous.
  I am afraid that one of the possible evils of this Bill is the danger of creating in selfish council house dwellers a vested interest in not building new council houses. It is literally true that, while the first new housing programme under the Bill will not materially affect the rent of old council house dwellers, the more successful local authorities are in building council houses despite this Bill the more the tenants in old council houses will find their rents going up. That is a very alarming feature.
  A second grave evil of this Bill is that it discourages local authorities from building new council houses. Even while the Bill has made its tortuous way through the House, reactionary authorities up and down the country have declared that they cannot afford to go on building new council houses under its terms. In the case of many local authorities the fact that there is no subsidy for council
  2420
  house building simply means that no council house building will be undertaken. As will be known within the next few weeks, every local authority is this year faced with a dramatic increase in its rate burden.
  Increased costs of materials, increased costs of labour, increased costs of staff salaries—negotiated because of the increased cost of living—increased cost of interest—all these make every finance committee of every local authority face a bigger increase in one year than has ever been known before. It is at this time that the Government, having savagely added to the interest burden of local authorities during the last two years— and possibly about to add to that burden within the next two days—choose to put through this Bill which, of itself, imposes a new financial burden on any local authority which has the social conscience to go on building houses.
  This Measure has to be judged with the rest of the Government's attacks on local government—the slashing increase of interest charges, the failure to check inflation. I believe that it is linked with the long-expressed desire of the reactionary wing of the Tory Party to free private houses from rent control. It creates the climate necessary for the Government's next major move, their next major attack on the standard of living of the workers —the raising of the rents of private houses. Through rates, through rents, through successive Budgets, and now, through this wretched Bill, the Tory Government run true to form, and are continuing in their chief aim of redistributing the wealth of the country as between those who labour and those who live on rents and investments and the like.
  Today is the last House of Commons stage of a bad Bill produced by a bad Minister for a bad Government. I am only sorry that a young Parliamentary Secretary, making his first Ministerial appearance in the House, should have been associated with a Measure which will haunt him when he faces the electors at the end of this Government. I shall vote against the Bill with deep conviction. During the next two years I shall watch its evil effects, particularly on the blitzed districts of Southampton which we have sought to shelter from its provisions. During the next two years I shall watch its effects with sorrow and with anger, and, when the effects are steadily

  2421
  revealed in the increased rents for council houses, my only consolation will be that the sorrow and anger that I feel will be shared by an ever-increasing number of British electors.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: In opening this debate the Parliamentary Secretary would have had us believe that this infamous Measure was welcomed by every section of the community. Such an attitude is a clear indication that by this Bill the new Toryism about which so much has been prated recently has been stripped of all its pretence. The party opposite, now undoubtedly stands exposed in all its nakedness as a class party. It stands for making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
  The object of the Measure is clearly to divide and conquer, to put non-council house tenants against council house tenants, to create the greatest measure of friction possible and by that means ultimately to reap rich dividends for the private landlord class. What better method could be adopted than to try to convince those living in privately-owned houses that they are paying in taxation and rates towards the rents of those living in council houses? In my own constituency, council house rents have ben increased during the past two weeks by 4s. per week as a consequence of the Government's increased interest charges. That is a clear indication that the enactment of the Bill will mean an intensification of the attack on the standard of living of the industrial masses.
  This legislation has a dual purpose. It is an attack on the Welfare State. Good housing is vital to good health, and if health is impaired the Government stand condemned. The Bill cripples local authority facilities for the building of council houses—of that there can be no doubt. For the year 1955–56 the housing allocation in my constituency was 350. It has now been reduced by 140, which of itself gives an indication of the Government's attitude. We have heard today of decisions being taken to stop building because the local housing authorities find the new financial conditions, burdens and penalties too much to be sustained.
  Let me cite the comparative cost of council houses built under the Labour
  2422
  Government, when the rigours of immediate post-war conditions were most severe and those built today. On a three-bedroomed house the loan charges in 1945–46—at 2½per cent.—amounted to £44 12s.; repairs contribution was £5 17s., and management cost was £1 10s. 6d. That made a total of £51 19s. 6d. Under the Tories, with the interest rate increased from 2½per cent. to 5 per cent., the loan charges have gone up to £86 10s. 2d.; the repairs contribution to £8; and the management cost to £1 15s.; making a total of £96 5s. 2d.
  Let us look at the subsidy position. Under the 1945–46 Government, the Exchequer subsidy was £16 10s. The rate contribution was £5 10s,, making a total of £22. Let us take the present situation. The Exchequer contribution is £10, and, incidentally, the authority need not contribute at all. The rent, exclusive of rates, in 1945–46 was l1s. 6d., but in 1955 under Toryism the rent is £1 13s. 2d. One could go on citing other examples. Rentals in the region of £2 or £3 are possible—that has been clearly indicated by the many speeches which we have heard from this side of the House this afternoon— imposing a burden that many will have to reject.
  In effect, this is rationing by the purse. It is the most effective form of rationing, and the Tory Government are using it. By higher rentals the Government intend to solve the housing problem. They will say that the demand has been met, for the rentals will force applicants out of the present housing queues.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the interest rates on loans by the Exchequer will obviously be increased and brought into line with those charged in other quarters. An increase in the interest rates of one-quarter per cent. means a rent increase of 1s. 4d. per week. The Minister has recently said that unless local authorities exercise more discrimination in giving rent relief to their tenants, there is bound to be a continual misuse of public money. I regard that as a very grave reflection upon the administration of all our local authorities.
  A reduction in rates of subsidy will tend to encourage local authorities to charge rents more in line with current wages and the present-day value of money. Is that not proof that the Government insist that rentals shall and must

  2423
  go up? In my view, the Government policy will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and by this Bill the tenant will be the sufferer.
  I hope that hon. Members opposite can hear what I am saying because I am speaking under the disability of a heavy cold. I say to them that it is quite clear from the nefarious Measures which have recently been, and are being, brought before the House that the Government are using the machinery of Parliament for the express purpose of making the rich richer. It cannot be wondered at that the great industrial mass of Britain assume the equal moral right to defend their standards of living by taking industrial action. So long as we continue in this way, we shall certainly create a situation which may well be catastrophic to our social and economic well-being. If this policy is to continue, the writing is on the wall. That has been clearly indicated by the trend of the by-elections the results of which we have had today.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: During the course of the rare speeches which we have heard from the benches opposite—and from their appearance one realises how little hon. Members opposite are interested in this Bill—we have been struck by the fact that hon. Members opposite view housing very differently from the way in which we on these benches view it.
  Having heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Hay) and Crosby (Mr. Page), one wonders whether they realise that housing consists of more than merely putting up four walls and putting a roof over someone's head. If we can build houses for people and take them out of the slums it means that for the first time we can give them a decent water supply, and provide the women with hot and cold water to do their housework, decent lighting and sanitation. But local authority housing means more than that. It means that we give an incentive to people to provide real homes in which to live, and, above all, it means that we give to the children who previously have lived in slums a completely new opportunity in life.
  I remember a new housing estate being built in Stoke-on-Trent immediately
  2424
  before the war, to clear some of our slums, and there was a lot of opposition to that. There was also a lot of opposition to the building of a very fine secondary modern school on that housing estate. I lived in a suburban residential area and often on the bus I heard people say, "Fancy building houses like that for slum people! Fancy building a school like that for them!" But that housing estate and the school have justified every penny spent on them. Juvenile delinquency in that area is much less than among other parts of the city. I maintain that that is due to two factors—the provision of new houses and the new school, and the better environment into which those children have been put.
  The hon. Members for Henley and Crosby have tried to show, as Tories often do, that there are reasons why we should not give housing subsidies or help in various directions to working-class people. Reference has been made to expenditure on drink, smoking and entertainment. I suggest that hon. Members opposite should look at the London evening newspapers and read reports of coming-out parties held by some of the wealthy people. They spend as much on one coming-out party as will keep a working-class family for many months.
  When Measures such as this are being discussed and economic debates are taking place, it is sheer impudence for hon. Members opposite to submit figures like that in order to argue that we should not continue to pay subsidies and render help to working-class people who need better conditions than they have at present. There may be some working-class people getting good wages, but there are also large numbers of people receiving basic wages which by no means meet the increased cost of living during the last two years.
  When I do my shopping on Fridays and Saturdays, and find what it costs to buy groceries, I wonder more and more how old people can live and buy the bare necessities of life. They are entitled to decent houses. They are entitled to be moved from slum areas where they live close to factories in the smoke and grime and dust from which many of them have suffered for many years.
  Last night, the hon. Member for Crosby was urging that we should be careful

  2425
  about where slum clearance houses are built and asked that they should not be built in the country. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said that we ought to push up higher and higher, building to five, six or even ten storeys.
  Mr. Gibson: The noble Lord said fifteen storeys.
  Mrs. Slater: Yes. May I respectfully suggest that those who live in very large houses with large gardens and estates around them should be the last to suggest that working-class people should not be able to look at trees and have grass around their homes, or be able to enjoy flower gardens.
  In large industrial areas and cities like mine, like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and London, large numbers of people live in houses which are a legacy from Tory Governments. They are in houses immediately adjoining factories and houses, such as those in my area, which, although they may not be scheduled as slum houses, are certainly substandard houses. They are houses in which people should not be asked to live.
  On the suggestion that we should not spoil the countryside, but should condemn people to live near factories and on pit banks, or should push higher and higher with buildings, I will tell a story about my city. In a slum clearance scheme we cleared people from an area in Hanley adjoining what we call the deep pit. There were factories all round it. The only little piece of open space was the old Port Vale Football Ground. As I represented that area on the local authority, I visited some of those people. I asked one old woman who had been moved, "How do you like it here?" She said, "It is a bit strange; there are only trees to look at," but, within two years, that woman would not have gone back if we had tried to make her. She had got used to looking at trees and enjoyed the fellowship of people living around her.
  This Bill will mean that local authorities in industrial areas will only be able to concentrate, in the main, on slum clearance rebuilding. None of us wants to see people go on living in those conditions, in damp, bad structures with no water laid on, with old-fashioned lavatories and with not a breath of fresh air coming into the house, but we are also
  2426
  very conscious of the fact that other people also need houses.
  In my area and parts of Lancashire there is the problem of mining subsidence. One has only to go to places like Wigan and Stoke-on-Trent to see houses which are just held up. Many people will have to go on living in those circumstances and there is no hope for them under this Bill. We have to say to those people, "We really think you need a house, but perhaps you earn a living from the coal." Coal owners of the past have taken the very foundations from under those houses and we ought to be considering the people who have to live under such conditions.
  The question of old people has been mentioned time and time again. It is a growing problem in every local authority's area. When people have earned their living in industry under very difficult circumstances, made great sacrifices and suffered great injustice, at least in the last few years of their lives they are entitled to live in comfort. Such a person needs a small house which an old person can manage, but it should be one which has modern facilities. Those people will get no help from this Bill.
  Then there are folks living in overcrowded conditions, particularly young people. We were told by the hon. Member for Crosby that they can build their own houses; private building could go on. Such people cannot put millstones round their necks in order to get houses which would cost £2,000 or £2,500, with very high interest rates. Those young people not only have to face high interest rates, but the uncertainty that under the present Government those interest rates may not go up even higher. They have gone up considerably in the last few months. In many cases those people also face the uncertainty of full employment. That uncertainty is just beginning, but it is possible that it will continue to grow. In such a situation it is absolutely impossible for many married couples to face the problem.
  The hon. Member for Henley gave four good reasons for the Bill. He said one was that it would help to contribute to a fall in building costs. That is sheer nonsense. It will not do that at all. The hon. Member was right in one respect— it will check house building. That is the only thing that the Bill will do. We

  2427
  have been repeatedly asked to consider Clause 5 and the special conditions under which a local authority could appeal to the Minister, but that does not mean anything at all.
  In view of the present outlook of the Government local authorities could put up special reasons—difficulties on sites in mining areas, where a lot of money has to be spent on foundation to prevent houses falling down, difficult sites because there are marl holes and very bad levels —but, when those authorities go to the Ministry, their applications will be turned down. The Clause does not mean that help will be given to many local authorities. This is an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and the carrot of Clause 5 is held out to local authorities.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire of his right hon. Friend whether he has considered the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) last week. My hon. Friend asked the Minister to consider the question of building up reserve funds by local authorities. I should like to know how far inquiry has been made into the question whether the Ministry could claim some of the reserve funds built up by authorities such as mine, which has taken great care to keep its housing revenue account in a very good condition.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because I am convinced that it is part of Tory policy and hits below the belt at the working class. In every respect it is a bad Bill, and we on these benches could not possibly support it.
  7.0 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I feel that I must begin by making an apology to the House for intervening in this debate because, as a result of other engagements and other work, I have not attended nearly as many of the earlier debates while the Bill was in Committee as I should have liked to have done. Also, like one of the earlier speakers in the debate, I am suffering from a cold.
  I assure the House that my lack of attendance at the earlier stage was not due to any lack of interest in these problems, because no one could represent a
  2428
  constituency such as mine without being made painfully aware, week by week and day by day, of the very serious housing problems which confront so many of our population. I think that we are all agreed on that on both sides of the House.
  It seems to me that the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) was claiming a sort of monopoly on the part of her hon. Friends and herself of interest in housing. All that I can say is that our record as a party on this side of the House, not only since the war but between the wars, has not been unsatisfactory. Although I was not in politics at that time, I could read before I came here and add up the figures. When the hon. Lady says that most of the bad houses today are a legacy of Tory rule, I feel bound to be unkind and to say that they could hardly be a legacy of Labour rule because they have not enough of them.
  It is perfectly true that there is an enormous number of houses in this country which by modern standards, and even by the standards, I should say, of when they were built, are disgraceful. No one can deny that. Most of them were put up at the height of the Industrial Revolution, and anyone who cares to look at this matter in a reasonably impartial manner and in the light of the rate which the population was not only expanding but moving into the towns at the same time must be fair and ask this question: was the problem one that any Government could have coped with in those days? However, all this belongs to a past which is too remote to concern anyone in politics today or, indeed, even his father or grandfather.
  The hon. Lady had a good deal to say about the wretched condition of the slums, and with what she had to say on that subject I found myself to be in agreement, although I would not accept some of the deductions which she drew from it. Surely one of the main objects of this Bill is to remedy this very evil and to divert the rebuilding efforts to slum clearance.
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who spoke first for the Opposition, said, among other things, that the Bill would affect the living standards of

  2429
  the people as a whole. I do not see how that can possibly be true, because the Bill neither increases nor decreases the actual expense of building houses. What it does is to alter the way in which the money is spent and where it comes from. It is open to hon. Members opposite to say that this redistribution is unfair, but I cannot see how they can maintain that it will increase or decrease the living standards of the people as a whole.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House made no reference during the recent Election to our intentions with regard to the housing subsidy. I do not blame him for not studying the rather humble speeches which I make myself, but I honestly say that, at most of the meetings I held, I set forth my views to some extent on housing. I invariably made it quite clear that I believed that a Measure to change and reduce the housing subsidies and to increase the scope and range of differential rents would be introduced, that I believed that such a Measure would be right and that I should support it.
  Mr. Lindgren: As the hon. Member has made reference to me, may I say that what is taken as an intention of Government policy is not the speeches of certain individuals made in the country, but the manifesto issued by the party at the Election as to the programme on which it fights that Election. Any Government on either side which was tied to the speeches of individual Members might find themselves in difficulty, but we are, I think, entitled to look at the programmes or manifestos of political parties as indicating intention of Government policy.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. Gentleman is, naturally, entitled to his view on this matter but, none the less, I am sufficiently old-fashioned as to believe that when a candidate, in his speeches in his own constituency, says something which is strongly opposed by the electorate, that will be reflected by the way in which the votes are cast at the ensuing Election. I hope that that is so, because, otherwise, we should be in a serious position so far as our democratic way of life is concerned.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to try to assist my hon. and gallant
  2430
  Friend in his argument. Is he aware that Her Majesty's Government, in November, 1953, in a White Paper, entitled, "Houses: The Next Step," used these words:
  "…the ever-growing burden of housing subsidies which, in the interest of the general body of taxpayers, cannot continue indefinitely at the present rate."
  I suggest that that is a conclusive forward indication of policy.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his support, but I am bound to say that, unlike the hon. Gentleman opposite, he, like I, believes that many of the electors go by not only what is said in White Papers but also by what is said by the candidates at the hustings.
  After all, does anyone seriously doubt that the payment of subsidies to people who could perfectly well afford to pay the full rent was becoming a public scandal. I should have thought not. I should have thought that the great majority of people fully support any Measure to ensure that the very poor people, living sometimes in very poor accommodation, are not either directly or indirectly financing people living in very much superior council house property.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: Would the hon. and gallant Member not agree that this major scandal to which he has referred is no greater than that which puts money into the pockets of speculators and industrialists under the Derating Act?
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It still remains a major scandal, but as we are debating the Third Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill, I will confine myself to that subject, more or less.
  As I see it, one of the main objects, if not the main object of the Bill, is to divert building effort to slum clearance once again. In so far as that is the case, it seems to me, as a non-expert on this subject, that there is a remarkable parallel between the position which we have reached today and what was done by a previous Conservative Government, I think, in 1933. Hon. Members opposite will remember that the measure then taken not merely greatly increased the rate of slum clearance, but also was followed by the most tremendous boom in house building in the inter-war years.
  Mr. Lindgren: Jerrybuilding.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am not saying that that will necessarily happen again. I do not pretend to have knowledge of this subject, but I think that if hon. Members opposite deny that it will have similar results, the onus is upon them to give more reasoned and convincing arguments than they have yet done for supposing that it will not have that effect. I cannot help thinking that the true future rate of house building, no matter who builds the houses, whether they are built privately or by councils, will—other things being equal and the credit squeeze apart—be determined by the actual shortage of houses. One of the most difficult things to judge today is the exact housing shortage in the country as a whole.
  One thing of which I feel perfectly certain is that we would not get the correct figure merely by adding up the waiting lists of all local authorities. That would not give the right figure any more than one would have got the right figure of the shortage of, say, the cheaper motor cars if, at the time when they were still semi-controlled, after the war, one had added up all the order lists of car dealers. As far as motor cars were concerned, it will be remembered that by what seemed to the ordinary layman to be a miracle, the shortage vanished overnight.
  I do not suggest that any such happy outcome will follow the housing shortage after the passing of the Bill, but I suggest that there is a very close relationship between the Bill and the future of rent controls. [HON. MEMBERS: "That lets the cat out of the bag."] There is no bag and there is no cat. That is a matter which has been raised by a number of hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, by a number of my hon. Friends on this side.
  Speaking for myself, at practically every Election meeting I held I was asked to explain my attitude on this subject as well as on housing subsidies. I always gave exactly the same reply: that subject to safeguards to ensure that people who could not afford other accommodation should not be thrown out on to the street, and so on, obviously the time had come for some easement in those restrictions. The matter is closely related to the subject matter of the Bill.
  2432
  If I may quote two figures concerning my own Borough of Croydon, the waiting list for council houses at present numbers between 3,000 and 4,000. It is a carefully pruned waiting list and I have not the slightest doubt of its genuineness. I am, however, assured that there is at any given moment, and has been for some time, an average of between 1,000 and 1,500 empty privately-owned houses. I cannot vouch for the figure, but that is what I am told.
  Of course, the reason for those houses being empty is a direct result of rent control. They are houses which have become vacant through the death or departure of the statutory tenant and the owner cannot afford to re-let them at the controlled rent. Therefore, he puts them up for sale, and even if he has to wait a year—in some cases, I have heard, two years—until he can sell with vacant possession, he does so.
  This shortage is purely artificial and would be ended overnight if rents could be charged for such houses which would render their maintenance and repair an economic proposition. I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite oppose a measure which, to me, anyhow, seems so obviously necessary and which, when put into effect, would not raise the rent for such houses any higher than, if as high as, the rent of the average council house today.
  Dr. King: Surely the hon. and gallant Member knows that the 1,500 houses which he says are empty could be let tomorrow at whatever rents the owners tried to get for them. What the owners are doing is hanging on to get their selling prices.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My information is to the contrary. I am not, however, joining issue with the experts on a matter such as this. My hon. Friends who know a great deal about this subject will be able to put the hon. Member right on that issue.
  Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. and gallant Member give way?
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I must get on, for I feel that I am detaining the House too long.
  There is, of course, another factor. I do not suggest that the present Measure

  2433
  will necessarily, if at all, help in this matter. Its relevance—it is relevant to the question of general shortage—lies in the fact that 900,000 old-age pensioners live alone in houses which both they and the local authorities feel are too big for them and have their rents paid with the help of National Assistance.
  I am not offering any simple solution, but I think no one would deny—hon. Members opposite referred to this problem on more than one occasion when they were in power—that it artificially augments the housing shortage. When people talk about checking the general building of council houses, we must bear in mind that the councils must be careful in some areas already, not to commit themselves to more building than in, say, ten years' time will be needed, otherwise they will become involved in extremely serious financial difficulties.
  I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister a question of detail. In the case of people who either pay because they are made to pay, or pay, perhaps, because they elect to pay, the full economic rent for a council house, is there any reason why in return they should not be allowed to have an ordinary contract lease, giving them a little more security and freedom? I know that hon. Members opposite may not agree with me, but my view is that a distinction is to be drawn between the person who occupies a house part of which is paid for at public expense and the person who occupies a house and meets the full bill himself.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: Will the hon. and gallant Member give way?
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would prefer not to give way. I am putting that only in the form of a question.
  Mr. Ede: That is not in the Bill.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am asking whether there is anything in existing legislation which prevents that. That is my question.
  As I have endeavoured to indicate, the Bill deals with only one facet of the housing problem. I would have said that at present our main task in housing is to arrest the decay which is taking place in the centres of our cities and large towns. Since the Bill will go a long way towards helping that progress, I shall give it my full support.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) suggested that we on this side of the House had failed to make our case against the Bill. Had he given us a little more of his time while we were examining the Bill in some detail, he might have gathered a little bit more about the Bill and our objections to it, neither of which he appears to grasp.
  To take one example, the hon. and gallant Member quoted the case of under-occupation by old people and the need, therefore, to deal with that matter as an important problem in housing management. I quite agree; but where was the hon. and gallant Member when we divided on the Amendment to provide a subsidy for building old people's accommodation? The only way to tackle this problem structurally is to provide cheap municipal accommodation for old people. This was said not only by hon. Members on this side, but by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), on the other side. I did not notice that the hon. and gallant Member was in the forefront of that particular struggle.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Whatever the wholly desirable cause may be, this is no time to start yet another subsidy.
  Mr. MacColl: That is only a roundabout way for the hon. and gallant Member to say that he does not want to do anything about the housing of old people. As long as we understand that, I am quite happy.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that that Amendment was defeated and that, therefore, it is not in the Bill.
  Mr. MacColl: I turn my attention for a moment to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I am sorry he is not here, and I am sorry he has had so much battering about, but he is one of the few hon. Members opposite who have taken the trouble to speak not only in this debate but during the consideration of the Bill on Report. I am sorry that he, like the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), has retired in shame. I am not surprised that those hon. Gentlemen have left, after what they said. I can quite understand that they now find it intolerable to remain

  2435
  here, to face us and feel how badly they behaved.
  However, the hon. Member for Crosby let the cat out of the bag. He made it perfectly clear that he was supporting the Bill because it would clear the way for private enterprise building. He even went so far as to say, "Of course, that will be of use in my constituency but not in Litherland urban district or in the County Borough of Bootle, for private enterprise building is not a practical solution of the housing problems there, but it is a practical solution to the housing problems in other parts."
  In other words, where property values are high, and where it is possible to obtain high rents and high sale prices for houses, let the private enterprise builder go in and make his pile, and leave the dirty work, leave the rebuilding of the core of the city, leave the housing accommodation for the old people, leave the provision of low-rented houses for workers, leave those problems to the County Borough of Bootle and other parts of Lancashire and to the wretched public funds, the wretched local authorities and to the public purse. That was the very clear and very explicit statement of the real argument behind the Bill.
  What the hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise was that we cannot treat these problems separately. The Urban District of Litherland, the County Borough of Bootle, the Borougs of Widnes and the Borough of Whiston are all around Crosby, and they all compete for the same building resources, the same labour supply. One of the things the Bill does not do is to make any attempt to say how we are to give adequate social priorities in the important job of providing housing for the people in those areas where, as the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, private enterprise has no solution to offer. That is the criticism of his argument both on practical grounds and on principle.
  There has been some discussion whether or not general house building will go up or whether it will go down because of the effect of the Bill, and questions have been asked about how it will affect local authority building as a whole. There has been a certain amount of difference of opinion in some of the few speeches we have heard from the benches opposite.
  2436
  I would quote The Times. When the proposals were first made they were bruited in the financial statement of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and commenting on his speech on 27th October, The Times said:
  "The Government are giving a lead by curtailing their own building. It is on the local authorities that the real pressure will fall. And that is also as it should be, for the large increase in local authorities' expenditure and in their drawings from the central Government has been the worst feature of public finance this year."
  In other words, from the point of view of The Times, what we call the social need of the people, the building of houses as homes for the people, the great capital development of the social services for the benefit of the people, are the worst features of Government activity during the past year. The Times went on:
  "The reduction in housing subsidies, on the other hand, may well have a significant effect on their building programmes."
  In other words, The Times welcomed the Bill as a very effective way of cutting down local authority building programmes.
  Both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister ought to be frank and say what they really think will happen and whether the Bill will cut down the local authorities' building programmes or whether it will not, and, if it is not going to cut them down, what the immediate solution is of the many difficulties of over-investment in which the Government have managed to land the nation.
  I am sorry to be rude to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think he was a little cheap in making what he obviously thought was a slick party point when he said that there would not be any reduction of general building by local authorities and added, "Look at what the Leader of the Opposition said in addressing a conference composed of Labour members of local authorities." He quoted the speech of my right hon. Friend dealing with the question of general building.
  I happened to be at that conference, and a very fine conference it was. It consisted of representatives of some of the great county boroughs, of some of the great cities that have lead the world in housing, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, and so on; and there were also there representatives of lesser, but biggish, towns and of little country villages; and some, coming singly, as representatives of

  2437
  small districts trying to keep some decent, civilised standards in the public administration of their areas. It was a wonderful collection of different types of people.
  It would have been easy for my right hon. Friend, as it would have been easy for anybody else, addressing that conference to have made some party capital, to have said, "Make things hard for the Government by not building. Do not do any building. Give it up. Chuck your hand in. Say that the Government cannot expect any building when the Government are trying to sabotage your work. Throw in your hand and let the Government carry on with it, and then blame them for the consequences." That, from a narrow, cheap, political point of view would have been the wisest thing to have done, but, of course, my right hon. Friend, like others of our party, is not without some sense of patriotism and a sense of duty. Also, he has a sense of the vital importance of struggling to carry on with housing even in the face of terrible odds, the odds of increasing costs and of the dragon's teeth we are reaping from the policy of the Government. My right hon. Friend said to them, "You must try to fulfil the duty you owe to the people who elected you, the duty to build houses for them."
  Yet the hon. Gentleman brought in that speech as an excuse for the Bill and as one of the justifications for saying that the Bill is not to have the hellish effect it is intended to have. That, I thought, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, was a particularly cheap and superficial kind of flashy argument.
  Mr. Powell: At least we have this recommendation that it is practicable to carry it out. I quoted the right hon. Gentleman's words as evidence that he thought it practicable for local authorities to carry out building for general needs.
  Mr. MacColl: I do not think anybody can measure whether it is practicable, because no one yet can measure the full effect of the Bill or of the Government's financial policy in the middle of a headlong career down the economic precipice. It is impracticable to strike a balance at the moment and to say what the local authorities will be able to do or what they will not be able to do. All the Government can say is what they hope their policy will achieve. It will not be
  2438
  practicable or possible for local authorities, except at great public expense, without a great burden of rates, to provide the houses which the people need. The hon. Gentleman says it will do no great harm, because the extra cost can be spread by means of rent pooling or rent rebates.
  Somebody on the other side of the House suggested that rent rebate and rent pooling would be achieved by the Bill. Where the hon. Member imagined he found it in the Bill I do not know. As it is not in the Bill, I had better not say too much about it.
  I should like to quote the case of my own local authority, the Borough of Widnes, which has a good housing record and a vigorous and progressive housing programme. In trying to arrange a pooled rents system, it has already found that it has to charge a net rent of £1 per week for a three-bedroomed non-parlour house. That is in an area where, as is common in the north, the general level of rents is low. It is the net rent without allowing for the payment of rates, and it is before any attempt is made to carry on the future programme of housing for old people, general needs, and so on. In many instances it has amounted to more than duplicating the rents which people have been accustomed to pay.
  People ought not to be too glib in saying, "We can raise the rents and put the responsibility on other tenants on municipal estates." In fact, authorities which are trying out the method find that they have very often to more than double existing rents. That is bound to upset household budgets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) said, it will create considerable dislocation in the industrial market because it will completely change the balance of people's expenditure if overnight their rent is to be doubled.
  I have another point to make about slum clearance. Here I want to return to what the Parliamentary Secretary said on Report. We were criticising him on the ground that this was really a Bill to destroy and not a Bill to rebuild. We said that it was designed not to redevelop areas but just to demolish houses without others being built to take their place. The hon. Gentleman quoted Section 27 of the Housing Act, 1936, and said we were talking nonsense because our legislation already contains adequate

  2439
  provision for redevelopment. He said that, under Section 27, when making a clearance area a local authority could add to it adjoining property which was not in itself unfit, and:
  "…any adjoining land the acquisition of which is reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development or user of the cleared area."
  That was the quotation which the hon. Gentleman made, and when he was challenged as to whether that was a new statement of policy and the Government would use that power to secure adequate modern development, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was nothing new in the Measure. However, if an hon. Member on the Government Front Bench makes a statement in the House in a certain context, he is, whether he likes it or not, saying something which is new.
  Mr. Powell: Cannot a Parliamentary Secretary merely quote an Act of Parliament?
  Mr. MacColl: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot just quote an Act of Parliament when he is using it as an argument against what has always been the practical experience of local authorities carrying out slum clearance, that one cannot always get an adequate area for redevelopment merely by adding grey land to one's clearance area.
  It is the Minister who controls the size of the clearance area, because it is his inspector who holds the inquiry. Consequently, it is a question not of what the Act says but of the policy which the Minister will adopt when local authorities make applications to him about their clearance areas. The Minister owes it not only to the House but also to local authorities to tell us clearly whether, if local authorities put forward very considerably extended clearance areas, and say that they consist of areas of adjoining land within the meaning of Section 27 of the 1936 Act and they are necessary in order to provide adequate redevelopment according to modern standards relating to new schools, new open spaces, new streets, and so on, the Government will accept such schemes and grant the subsidy. If the Government do not intend to do so, the Parliamentary Secretary made a most unfortunate remark and has put his foot in it. If the Government do intend to do so, that will meet a great
  2440
  deal of the criticism that has been uttered.
  I join all my hon. Friends who have denounced the Bill as reactionary and narrow-minded. It is based on old-fashioned, out-of-date, obsolete ideas of what is required in housing. It is a mean-spirited Bill. In trying to secure miserable economies in the expenditure of public money, it seeks to throttle down and sabotage the housing drive, and is calculated to break the hearts of the people in our town halls who are trying to do a good job.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Baldock: I trust that I may be forgiven if I do not follow too closely the remarks of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), because many of his arguments were of a rather technical kind. I wish to detain the House for a few moments only to welcome the intentions of my right hon. Friend and the Government to transfer, by the Bill, the emphasis in council house building in future from housing for general use to housing to replace slum dwellings.
  This change of emphasis is no less necessary in the countryside than in our great cities. During our debates on the Bill emphasis has, naturally, been placed more upon the problem in our large towns, for that is where the bulk of our people reside, and, consequently, it is a matter which must concern the majority of hon. Members. However, there are in the rural areas a great many sub-standard houses and cottages many of which are far older than the urban dwellings, because they were built long before our present large and newer towns were built and certainly long before the Industrial Revolution brought about a very large amount of the building with which we now have to deal by way of slum clearance. Some of the older houses and cottages in the countryside are deplorable places to live in, and that has probably been so for a very long time.
  My right hon. Friend and the Government are to be congratulated upon tackling the problem, upon remembering that the problem extends to the rural areas, and upon allowing rural and urban district councils to take advantage of the subsidies to provide houses to accommodate people at present living in houses which are condemned and many of which

  2441
  have been condemned for a considerable number of years. That is an admirable step forward in the right direction.
  My one regret about the Bill is that there is not enough emphasis on the problem of the old people. I have been rather impressed by the arguments which I have heard from both sides of the House and from my own constituency about the advantages which would result from the provision of more small units of accommodation for the older people——
  Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the Bill as it now stands about the older people. There was a discussion on the subject in Committee, but the Amendment was defeated. On Third Reading, hon. Members must confine their remarks to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Baldock: I am sorry if I have gone away from the Bill in that respect, Mr. Speaker. I was merely regretting that there was not enough emphasis on that subject, because it seemed to me that that would be an economical use of housing units.
  Apart from that, I believe that the Bill will do a job which really requires to be done. Four or five years ago the majority of families on waiting lists were living in single rooms or in furnished accommodation with other families and desperately needed more space as well as better accommodation. Now, the majority of those on the lists are people who are already housed and have plenty of space, but whose accommodation is well below standard.
  Therefore, the majority who want houses are those who need to be provided with better houses. Hon. Members opposite may disagree, but that is the case in a great many local authority areas. The balance has completely swung away from families crowded into rooms and small accommodation and it is those in sub-standard accommodation who want to be provided with new houses. The Government are wisely and courageously tackling that problem by changing the emphasis in this way.
  I am sorry that the rules of order prevent me from referring to old people. Other than that the Minister is to be highly commended for introducing the Bill and I hope that he will continue to tackle this very great housing problem courageously, because there is little doubt
  2442
  in the country as a whole that there is a good deal of wasted accommodation. I hope that he will soon turn his attention to providing for the many families who want more space and better houses.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: We must congratulate the Government's Whips in having persuaded one or two Members opposite to enter the debate in the last hour and a half. They have not been very helpful, and some have been a long way from the point, but in the large last hour and a half we have not had a one-sided battle. Unfortunately, two Government supporters to whom I wish to refer have left, but the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) made such an awful blunder in his quotations from the Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure that even in his absence I must put him right.
  The hon. Member quoted a number of figures, one of which showed the very large sums of money spent on drink. He suggested that the working people of this country spent £800 million on drink last year. Had he studied the footnote at the bottom of that page, he would have seen that the consumption of beer had gone down and that of wines and spirits had gone up, so that it was not the workmen's fourpenny pint that caused the increase in total expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not 4d."] I do not drink it; it costs too much money.
  That has no relevance to the point which was then under discussion. It was whether the people who will be affected by these changes can afford to pay the greatly increased rents which we say the Bill will inevitably create. Had the hon. Member for Henley studied another page of that Blue Book, he would have found that 18 million working people have total incomes of less than £10 a week after the deduction of tax. That proves the statement of one of my hon. Friends earlier that the average wage is something less than £10 a week.
  If the Bill results in rents of 50s., as has been said—and it was suggested that in Bootle it would be £3 a week—it will be producing a rent level which the average working-class family in this country will find impossible to pay. Such families will pay those rents if they are pushed into so doing. But they will suffer in the amount of food they get, the

  2443
  clothes they wear and their enjoyment of the amenities of life, because their incomes will be so restricted after having paid the rent. That fact should have been enough to kill the Bill with any Government that had a social conscience, which is apparently not possessed by the present Government.
  The justification for the Bill appears to be that we are spending too much money in subsidies and that the national economy cannot stand the millions of £s of subsidies paid on housing. The figure is about £100 million a year. What is £100 million a year with a national income of more than £8,000 million, when we are thinking of the enormous benefit which millions of people would get as a result of being moved from bad to new and modern accommodation? A nation which can spend the money which this nation is spending on armaments of all kinds—money which we are told by hon. Members on both sides of the House is wasted because it is buying the wrong kind of weapons—should not quibble at spending £100 million, or even more, to get decent housing accommodation, especially when it is remembered that the Slum Clearance Report listed more than 800,000 houses which should be pulled down. Other experts have said that there were more than 2 million houses which should be pulled down.
  In London alone there are more than 200,000 houses over 100 years old. Many are structurally sound and will do for a year or two, but they do not qualify for the slum clearance subsidy, although they should be pulled down because they are draughty, uncomfortable, cold and inconvenient.
  Mr. Powell: When should they be pulled down—this year or next?
  Mr. Gibson: I am coming to that. They should be pulled down when the situation so justifies, and I say that in a situation where scores of thousands of families are on urgent waiting lists that point has not arrived.
  One hon. Member opposite said that the vast waiting lists which undoubtedly existed all over the country were unreal, and I think that they are. The overall waiting list in London is unreal because it contains a good deal of duplication, yet that list has been scientifically sorted and
  2444
  we know that on the urgent waiting list in London are about 50,000 families who must be dealt with as soon as possible. There are all sorts of reasons; because the house is not fit to live in, very often because it is grossly overcrowded, even because three or four families are living in a house that should accommodate only one, and sometimes because it is beginning to fall down. None of those people will get a house in 18 months' time, because general housing is to stop. The Minister has said so. He is reducing the subsidy now to £10 and hopes to eliminate it entirely in a couple of years.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend has said that general housing is to stop. Will he please verify that statement?
  Mr. Gibson: Yes. I shall prove it by telling the House what we have been telling the House through the whole debate, that if subsidies are abolished for general housing, general housing will stop.
  Mr. Powell: That may be the hon. Member's opinion, but he attributed to my right hon. Friend the statement that general housing is to stop. Will he either withdraw it or verify it?
  Mr. Gibson: It is a result of his policy. We are supported in that contention by the resolution of the Urban District Councils' Association specially called to discuss this point. It almost unanimously condemned the Bill and, in the middle of our discussions, asked for the Bill's withdrawal.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what he called a Labour conference a week or two ago at which the Leader of the Labour Party made a speech. The hon. Gentleman quoted extracts from that speech, but what he did not tell the House was that the outcome of the conference was a resolution, carried unanimously, which condemned the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and asked that it should be withdrawn. The Association of Municipal Corporations has gone on record against the Bill. Every local authority has condemned this Measure. Yet, in spite of that, the Government have pushed it through this House. I suppose they hope that local authorities will do their best to make it work.

  2445
  This Bill is a denial of the responsibility of the Government for the housing needs of the people. I do not believe that the housing needs of our people can be met except with the assistance of State action. All the history of housing legislation— this is what I wished to say to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—from the days of the first Lord Shaftesbury prove that unless the power, strength and finances of the State, as well as of local authorities, are brought in to aid the task of providing houses for the common people of the country, the houses are never provided.
  It is significant that even now no one expects private enterprise to tackle the problem of the slum areas. But why not? There are huge estates in London, huge areas which are owned by house agents, some of whom I could name. There are housing companies who have taken enormous profits in days gone past. Since the war they have taken their 5 per cent. and their 10 per cent., which is a pretty good return on their money. Why should they not rebuild out of their profits in those areas which they have so exploited in the last 20 or 30 years? But no one suggests that that should be done. It is accepted that the clearing of the slums must be the responsibility and duty of local housing authorities, and the Government are to continue the subsidy for that purpose.
  This is no new thing. This is no new additional spur to local authorities to get on with schemes of slum clearance. So far as London is concerned, it is six years too late, because the London County Council started a slum clearance programme six years ago and is well ahead with it.
  Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman state how many houses the London County Council has demolished up to the present time?
  Mr. Gibson: If I had been given notice of that question, I could have brought the figures with me. The hon. Gentleman will find them in the minutes of the London County Council meeting a couple of weeks ago.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary knows his job, he will also be aware of the next point I wish to make. Slums are not cleared by a stroke of the pen. It takes at least two years to get through the whole
  2446
  complicated and involved machinery of the slum clearance law before it is possible to put one brick upon another —as I know from bitter experience in trying to get slum clearance schemes going in London both before and since the war.
  There are 300,000 or 400,000 slum houses which are supposed to be pulled down within the next five years, but they will not be pulled down. Many of them will not get through the first stage of declaration, because of the trouble which arises over declaring and public inquiries. I have a case in mind of a slum clearance scheme in the East End of London in an area which everyone who saw it said ought to be cleared. That scheme was held up for two years because one owner objected and claimed that the action of the Minister was ultra vires. We won in the end, but as a result of that objection more than two years were lost, and Stepney, the area in which that scheme was to be carried out, remained a festering slum for those two extra years.
  The same thing will happen now. There will be some owners who will object. Public inquiries will have to be held, and it is misleading people to try to make them believe that because a list is made of houses which it is hoped to deal with in the next five years, the areas will be cleared and new homes built for the people. In many cases it is physically impossible to do that. There is nothing in this Bill which will push on slum clearance programmes or the campaigns of local housing authorities.
  All the large towns have been busy for months—some for years—preparing slum clearance schemes, getting the necessary resolutions passed and going through all the procedure. They will not be bothered very much, but those who have not yet started will find that it will be at least two years before they can put one brick upon another. The Government are misleading this House when they try to create the impression that this is some great new spurt to pull down the festering slums of England. I wish it were, because then I should be the first to back it.
  One of the inevitable results of getting rid of the subsidy will be to put up the cost of house building to local authorities. We shall not have a sudden drop in house building because there is a drop in the subsidy. But judging by all the reports

  2447
  which one reads in the trade journals, prices will still go up. It is significant that in the Sunday Times last Sunday there was a middle page article dealing with costs in the building industry. It was headed, "Building's Lost Millions," and contained a good deal of sense. One of the statements in the article was:
  "Though formal collusive tendering may now have disappeared, collusive arrangements unquestionably remain."
  But the Monopolies Commission condemned all that months ago. We were told by the Minister that it would be stopped and that the trade had agreed to give up this attempt by collusive tendering to keep up the price of tenders to local housing authorities. In another part of the article it stated:
  "The price rings of the building industry are very probably the largest single example of restrictive practice in the country."
  Those who have had anything to do with the industry know that to be true, and that also has been condemned by the Monopolies Commission. Reference was made in the article to a point which I have several times raised in this House, the need for greater mechanisation of the building industry and the adoption of more modern methods of building. Referring to the failure of the industry to do this, it stated:
  "As a result the building worker has half a horse power of mechanised assistance as against the three-and-a-half horse power of the factory worker."
  I say——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member seems to be going far beyond the scope of a Third Reading debate.
  Mr. Gibson: I am trying to show that the Bill is unnecessary; that the subsidy ought not to be cut and that there is another way to deal with the problem. I will not develop that further, except to say that if as much attention had been paid to keeping down the price of building as has been paid to trying to prove that subsidies were being paid unfairly and in an extravagant way to families who were not entitled to them, and so on, we should now have a much healthier building industry. We might even have been able to get rid of subsidies by agreement, because the cost of housing building would have been reduced to the point
  2448
  where subsidies were no longer needed. Surely that is what we should aim at.
  In the meantime prices are still rising, and by cutting the subsidies the Government are merely making things more difficult for local housing authorities all over the country. As has been stated already, that is beginning to show itself by the reduction in the number of houses being built.
  I will conclude by recounting to the House the figures published in this month's Housing Returns which show that the number of houses under construction by local authorities in September last was some 157,000, whereas on 31st December it was only 151,000, a reduction of 6,000 houses. Houses built by private builders, about whom we have heard so much today, dropped by 3,551. Houses built by housing associations and by Government Departments have also dropped, and the total reduction in the number of houses under construction is over 10,000.
  It looks as if the Government's policy has succeeded even before this Measure has begun to operate. This, I anticipate, is the result of the very substantial increase in interest rates. By the time this Bill becomes an Act, with the removal of the subsidy, local government housing is bound to go down to the point to which it went before, with the inevitable result that there will be a revolt and a new Government will have to reintroduce the subsidy.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) when he says that we ought to get rid of all subsidies by agreement on both sides of the building industry so as to reduce the cost of building.
  Mr. Gibson: I think the hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round. I said that if we could reduce the cost of building we should get rid of subsidies.
  Mr. Osborne: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he would like to do that. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I dislike subsidies of all kinds because they mask the true cost of production. I would much rather see those in need given straight monetary add than be confused and hoodwinked by a false price.
  The hon. Member for Clapham stated twice that my right hon. Friend had said

  2449
  that, as a result of this Bill, general house building would stop. The hon. Gentleman was challenged to produce the reference, but failed to do so. I think that in fairness to the House he should either withdraw his statement or say that his memory was at fault.
  Mr. Gibson: If the interpretation of my words is what the hon. Gentleman says it is, then I withdraw them. I say that the policy now being pursued will result in the stoppage of municipal housing.
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is very fair. It was his interpretation of what my right hon. Friend said and not what, in fact, he said. I think it rather important to clear up that point.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: I was present when my hon. Friend was speaking, and it was very clear to me that what he was arguing was that it was intended by this Bill to foist upon local authorities the responsibility for housing, and, therefore, that whatever general building was done would be done by the local authorities.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I see no point in pursuing the matter, because the hon. Member has withdrawn it.
  Mr. Osborne: I am much obliged to him for so doing, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  It seems to me that the complaint about the Bill is that it reduces subsidies at a time when, as one hon. Member said, building costs are rising and when, therefore, subsidies ought to be increased. The hon. Gentleman also said that even from the time of Lord Shaftesbury it has always been the Government who have had to undertake the housing of the poorest people, that it was a matter for the State and not for the private builder. Historically, that is not quite true, but, even if it were, I would point out that the State can only provide whatever is thought desirable within its own financial capacity. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
  Mr. Bevan: I prefer "economic capacity" to "financial capacity."
  Mr. Osborne: I prefer that, too. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this objection could have been raised against the action taken by the Labour Government in 1948–49, of which he was
  2450
  a distinguished member. At that time we were providing food subsidies as now we are providing housing subsidies. It is a perfect analogy, and I hope that it is in order to use it to rebut the charge made from the benches opposite.
  In 1948 or 1949—I have forgotten the exact date—our food subsidies had risen from £410 million to £560 million. Sir Stafford Cripps said that the State could not afford such a sum, and he set a permanent ceiling for food subsidies of £410 million a year. He did that for the same reason that the present Government are having to cut housing subsidies. I beg hon. Members opposite to read the speech of Sir Stafford Cripps at that time. I remember it very well. He said that we could not afford to pay such large subsidies because we were then in an economic crisis not unlike the one facing us today. The Government of the day had to say that they were going to spend the money more wisely.
  Mr. Bevan: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the figure of the total amount of taxation given in relief to the higher income groups during the past three or four years?
  Mr. Osborne: That is quite beside the point.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It seems to me that we are getting a little wide of the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Osborne: The objection to the Bill is that it cuts subsidies. My argument is that it cuts them because that is part of the general economic policy of the Government by which they hope to control inflation. It is as important a part of the general economic policy as the credit squeeze and the increase in the Bank Rate. To justify what I believe to be sound economic policy, I am reminding the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that, in a parallel case, he himself took the same action and that, therefore, he cannot now condemn what the present Government are doing. The only difference is that then it was food whereas, today, it is housing. When the Labour Government cut the food subsidies so viciously the right hon. Gentleman made no protest at all.
  Mr. Bevan: It is always very interesting when we can get hon. Members opposite

  2451
  to take part in the debate. We have not succeeded very well so far on this Bill, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for entertaining us. Would he now tell us what the ceiling is on housing?
  Mr. Osborne: I am not arguing that at all. All that I am saying quite seriously to the right hon. Gentleman is that his objection to the Bill is simply that it cuts subsidies.
  Mr. Sparks: Abolishes them.
  Mr. Osborne: In certain respects. But the right hon. Gentleman, supported by many of his hon. Friends, took exactly the same action when the Socialist Party was in power. Do they think that housing is more important to the people than food? If the cutting of subsidies was justified in the case of food, is it not equally justified in the case of housing?
  Mr. Moyle: We did not commit ourselves to 300,000 houses a year.
  Mr. Osbome: May I deal with that point? The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, said that they did not commit themselves to 300,000 houses. They never built 300,000 houses. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that 200,000 was the maximum.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This has nothing to do with the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Osborne: I come back to the Third Reading, because there are two other points I should like to make on it.
  The Hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) said that in the Merseyside area there were 350,000 people requiring rehousing. He made the very important point that finance alone, whether under this Bill or outside it, would not quickly solve that problem on Merseyside. He said that it was the economic aspect of the problem that was so baffling, and it was so much more important than the merely financial problem.
  In reply to what he said—and I listened to him closely, because he obviously knew what he was talking about when referring to conditions on Merseyside—may I put this to him? Whatever may or may not be in the Bill, the problem of the economic problems involved in the rehousing of 350,000 people on Merseyside is one on which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
  2452
  opposite could help. I know I am getting out of order in saying this, but if they could use their influence to stop, in particular, the restrictive practices in the building industry, we could build cheaper and better houses.
  Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to what I said about Liverpool. What I said was that there are 350,000 people in Merseyside living in unfit conditions, and that the physical problem is serious enough without the degree of financial restriction imposed by this Bill.
  Mr. Osborne: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I tried to write down what he said, and if I have misinterpreted what he said I apologise. I think the hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill would result in an increase in the rents of council houses, and was, to that degree, an attack on working-class standards.—[HON. MEMBERS: "And will send up the cost of living."] Let me try to deal with that point. Do the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel that in no circumstances people living in council houses who could afford to pay a higher rent ought not to pay the proper rent? Does he think that they should be subsidised for ever, no matter what their income may be? Does he think that they should have a kind of squatters' right to big subsidies, or does he think, as does his leader, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, that there is a case for differentials in rent according to income?
  Mr. Mahon: I would rather that the hon. Gentleman was a bit more positive. The case was made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on the same ambiguous lines. What I suggested the Government should tell us is what is the earning capacity of the Liverpool workers and then tell us what they can afford. I say that they cannot afford any more than they are paying at the moment, and that the average wage of the Liverpool worker is £10 a week. I base my social estimates on that.
  Mr. Osbome: If it is said that he would pay a rent of up to £3 a week out of an income of only £10 a week, I should say that that was scandalous. But I do not think that it is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] I do not think it is. I do not think it is a fair comparison.
  Mr. Sparks: It is a positive fact that in my constituency the building of houses for general purposes without the subsidy will mean charging rents of from £3 10s. to £3 15s. per week for three-bedroom flats. That is not a fable; it is a fact.
  Mr. Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the rents will be £3 10s. to £3 15s. per week already, without this Bill and without a subsidy, and that on an income of £10 a week, because the two things must be related? Taking the one without the other makes no sense at all.
  It was also said by an hon. Member opposite that this Bill was class legislation—nasty, Tory legislation—and that it was a real direct attack upon working-class standards. That is sheer nonsense. I put this to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Do they think that it is socially more unjust to put up the rents of council houses than it is to compel the same householders to pay, let us say, twice or more than twice as much for the coal they use? The cost of coal in the last eight years has gone up on the average from 79s. to 165s. 8d. per ton, and it comes from a nationalised industry in which there is no profit at all.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not dealing with coal in this Bill.
  Mr. Osborne: The complaint of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the Bill will tend to put up rents. That is nonsense. If the objection is made to it on social grounds, I think I am entitled to say that it is no greater social evil—and even to ask if it is even as great—because rents will not go up double, whereas already the price of coal has gone up more than double, without one word of protest from the other side of the House.
  We have to face the fact that this Bill is part of the general economic policy of the Government, as I understand it. We are now, as we were in 1947–48, living as a nation beyond our income, and the problem before us is either to increase our income or cut our coats according to our cloth. Therefore, what I should like to see on the economic side is not a cutting down, but an increase in income— that is my policy—but that means more work. If the parties on both sides of the House are not prepared to face the unpopularity of demanding more work and, therefore, greater production, the
  2454
  inevitable result that we shall have to face will be a cutting down somewhere.
  I say that this cutting down of the amount of the subsidies being given on housing is by no means as savage or as anti-social as that which hon. Members opposite agreed to in the cutting of the food subsidies by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, and that, on that ground, I am fully entitled to support the Bill.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Probert: It is very difficult at this stage to introduce anything new; indeed we have heard for some months now the arguments that have been advanced from this side of the House against many parts of this Bill. I am not going to weary the House by repeating the arguments that have been put before, although I am amused by what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). My right hon. Friend said he was delighted to see so many hon. Members opposite taking part in this debate, and, indeed, we welcome it. I have sat through the discussions on this Bill, not perhaps as long as everybody else, but as long as most people, and during that time I have found the benches on the other side of the House mostly empty while very long arguments have been put from this side on the demerits of this Bill.
  It is significant to me that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have had to bat on a lonely wicket—and it says much for their diligence and patience that they have done it—and now seem to think that they have countered all our arguments successfully. Some of our arguments must have been correct, but in not one single instance has the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary been forthcoming in the slightest degree.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Member will agree that a number of Amendments— some desired by local authority associations as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House—have been made to the Bill. For example, some have been made in Clause 8.
  Mr. Probert: For the sake of my argument the case quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary is wholly insignificant.
  Ostensibly, the Bill is intended to encourage slum clearance. How does the Minister propose that it will be done? He adopts the most negative approach

  2455
  possible, which is merely to slash housing subsidies. In other words, in order to encourage local authorities to clear their slum areas we must stop housing for general needs.
  An hon. Member opposite said that the result of this legislation would be that the number of houses built would be maintained at their present level. He quoted in support of his argument what happened in the 1930s. Quite by chance I was able to obtain the statistics relating to that period, as given in the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom, 79th and 83rd issues. Reading those statistics we find some results which are rather interesting, if considered together with the figures which he quoted.
  In 1930, approximately 60,000 houses were built by local authorities, and 91,000 by private enterprise. I will not weary the House with any more details, except to say that in 1933—which is the date the hon. Member mentioned—private enterprise built about 142,000 houses, and local authorities 55,000. The figures in respect of local authority houses for the following years are as follows: 55,000 in 1934; 41,000 in 1935; 52,000 in 1936, and 71,000 in 1937. The figures for private enterprise houses were as follows: 207,000 in 1934; 286,000 in 1935; 272,000 in 1936, and 273,000 in. 1937.
  Since 1946 not a single house has been built for rent by private enterprise in the Aberdare Urban District Council. I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite—who must have to face desperate people who come to their "surgeries" and ask what they can do for them in their search for a house—can adopt the attitude they do in the circumstances.
  An hon. Member opposite quoted certain figures in relation to slum clearance. His figures were quite correct, having been obtained from the Summary of Returns for Slum Clearance, 1954. If we study those returns we find that the number of individual houses to be demolished is 103,000 and the number of houses in clearance areas to be demolished is 272,000, making a total of 375,000 houses. That is in respect of a period of five years, which means that the average rate should be 75,000 per year. That is almost the figure that the Minister desires. I believe his target is 80,000 per year.
  The Government have boasted of their ability to produce 300,000 houses a year.
  2456
  I accept that figure; in fact they built over 350,000 houses in one year. In 1953–54 local authorities built approximately 200,000 each. If the Minister were really bent upon slum clearance, and was also sympathetic towards housing for general needs, why could not he say to local authorities, "Right—if you will build in the ratio of one slum clearance house to two for general needs I will not alter the existing subsidies"? That would have been a simple solution to the problem. We would surely all agree that no local authority would refuse an offer under such conditions.
  I am sure that many hon. Members will be astonished to hear that one local authority in my area—the Mountain Ash Urban District Council—has only 78 houses to clear in the five-year programme. I am very pleased about that. That means that it will have to clear approximately 16 houses per year. The Aberdare Urban District Council has 180 houses to clear in five years, or 36 houses per year. Upon the experience of postwar years we find that each of those local authorities can build between 100 and 300 houses per year. The Aberdare Urban District Council has, in fact, built 350 houses in one year. Surely those councils could meet this slum clearance problem with the existing subsidy rates for general purposes as well, with the simple condition that they incorporate within their present programme 36 houses in the case of Aberdare and 16 in the case of Mountain Ash.
  Instead of that the Minister is ruthlessly slashing the subsidies and, ultimately, abolishing them altogether. I do not want to be demagogic or too emotional, but I must point out that by this action he is returning thousands of people into a hell of despair, where they will have to wait year in and year out for a little missive to come from the town hall telling them that they will be given what is their right in this society—a home of their own.
  There is one question of detail which I should like to ask, to which I failed to get an answer from the Minister during the Committee stage. In common with many of my colleagues, I am interested in Clause 5. I know that it is merely an escape Clause and has been included in previous legislation. My two local authorities have told me that they know

  2457
  of no instance where they have benefited from this escape Clause in previous legislation. Can the Minister tell us specifically how the Clause will work? Perhaps I may assist him to some degree. The average weekly earnings for April, 1955, are given as £10 17s. per week. According to the figures given to me by the Mountain Ash Urban District Council, the economic rent of the houses it is now building is £2 11s. per week. That is a fair figure based upon present-day costs. It is a figure we can at least assume to be correct for the rent in two or three years' time, when housing subsidies are demolished and the council has either to charge tenants the economic rents, or pool the rents of all houses, old and new.
  The Mountain Ash Council is one of the many small authorities which have not a large number of pre-war houses to work on. It has about 250. The relationship of that rent to earnings of £10 17s.—and in my constituency earnings like that are very high indeed—is 23 per cent. Does the Minister think that that relationship is high. Or does he think that it should be higher—say 25 per cent.? Or does he think it should be lower—10 or 15 per cent.? If he thinks that 23 per cent. is high, would he agree that local authorities in such circumstances could benefit under Clause 5?
  Mr. Powell: I wonder if the hon. Member could supply another figure, which, I think, is relevant? He mentioned that there was a small number of pre-war houses—and, presumably, a larger number of post-war houses. Could he say whether that rent has been calculated which would be charged to the tenant on the assumption of a pooling of rents and subsidies?
  Mr. Bevan: Before my hon. Friend replies to that, I may say that we are back now to a rejoinder which we tried to get in Committee. Do we now understand——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not in Committee now.
  Mr. Bevan: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think that I am entitled to put this point to the hon. Gentleman. He has suggested that before there could be any relief under the Clause we are considering a calculation should first of all be made which would include the pre-war houses.
  2458
  In other words, he is now insisting on differentia] rents before Clause 5 is applied.
  Mr. Powell: I have not said a thing about differential rents. I asked the hon. Member if he would supply a figure, which I am sure is relevant, because any local authority would make that calculation. If the hon. Member cannot give the figure now, I should be obliged if he could supply it later.
  Mr. Probert: I think that I can give it in round-figure form. This rent is the economic rent. At the present moment the council has a system of pooled rents, and taking into account the present scheme of 233 houses, the number of postwar houses is, I think, 750 houses. I am open to correction, and if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to take this further, I am quite prepared to correct any figures which I may have given incorrectly.
  I shall not delay the House any longer except to say that the Bill is, as the Minister himself has said, an expression of the alarm felt at the growing increase in subsidies. The Minister has said that the removal of the subsidies will not mean great increases in rents, and he has quoted the quite nonsensical increase of 7d. a week. We all know that one of the easiest ways by which he could have assisted council house rents would have been to have told the Treasury to charge interest rates of 3 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. Such a reduction would have reduced rents quite fantastically. I shall not delay the House longer, but I do wish for an answer to the specific question I have asked.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Pannell: A good deal of misplaced indignation has been engendered in this debate, and there has been an attempt to dramatise a situation which is capable of calm appraisal. I intervene chiefly because remarks have been made about Liverpool, and I represent a Liverpool constituency which has a housing problem probably as bad as any in the country.
  A great deal of the property there is scheduled for slum clearance and the problems of those living in the slums are very grave indeed. Those people do not qualify for houses as of right. It is true

  2459
  that they are living in sub-standard accommodation, but they are not living in over-crowded conditions and their claims are always postponed pending a slum clearance programme. Now at last, by this Bill, those people have some hope. There is an emphasis on slum clearance in the Bill which will be of very great benefit to my constituency.
  In considering the burden that will fall on the tenants of council houses as a result of this Measure, I do not think that enough attention has been given to a point which has been stressed often enough during the debate—the spread of the burden. I fully admit that if the full burden is to be placed on the tenants of new council houses it will be an intolerable one. If the spread is made then it is a very slight burden.
  In view of the fact that a number of figures have been given, I will give some for Liverpool. I have made a study of this as I am a member of the Liverpool City Council and of the Housing Committee. The Corporation owns 60,000 houses and is building at the rate of 3,000 a year, which is 50 per cent. more than during the period of Socialist administration. In relation to the total number of houses owned by the Corporation, the number being built is relatively small. If the effect of the Bill is to increase the rent of new houses by 10s. a week, then it is clear that if the spread is made over the 60,000 houses and there are 3,000 built every year, that burden is reduced to one-twentieth—from 10s. a week to 6d. a week.
  That is the calculation which I have made of the effect which the Bill would have in Liverpool if the burden were spread over the whole pool of houses owned by the Corporation. It is not an onerous burden. At the end of five years, assuming that interest rates remain high, it would amount to 2s. 6d. a week.
  Of the 60,000 houses owned by Liverpool Corporation, over 40,000 were built before the war and about 20,000 have been built since. The houses built before the war were a model of their kind— a very fine type of terraced house, built fairly close to the centre of the city in pleasant estates. They compare not unfavourably with the houses being erected today. Obviously the costs were
  2460
  much lower; they were built at an average cost of less than £500 a house, compared with £1,500 today. The rents are based on the cost of those houses and not spread over the whole pool. Consequently, we find that tenants in these mature houses, conveniently placed near the centre of the city, pay rents of about 14s. a week, whereas in the raw estates on the outskirts of the city tenants have to pay 30s. a week and more.
  It does not seem to me that the principle of fair shares is being applied in this instance. Very often the people in the older estates were placed in those houses before the war, when they had large families of small children. The children have since grown up and the houses are often occupied only by the parents. These people, perhaps fifty to sixty years old, have their children off their hands and have reasonable incomes, but their rents are 14s a week. Those who now have large families and who have burdens to carry quite beyond comparison with the burdens of the older people I have mentioned are sent to the new estates on the outskirts of the city and have to pay rents of 30s. a week. If the Bill were applied and the burden fell only on the new houses these tenants would have to pay up to 40s. a week.
  I think it is within the power of the corporation to equalise the burden, since the average rent in Liverpool for the 60,000 houses is less than £1 a week and need not be more than that figure for anybody if the burden were spread. As a result of the Bill the average rent could eventually rise to 22s. 6d., but in present conditions that is not an unfair burden. A lot of the drama which has been introduced into the debate is quite irrelevant, and if hon. Members opposite would apply themselves to the figures involved they would come to a different point of view.
  Another point which is relevant to the debate is that there is not so much a shortage of houses in Liverpool as a great deal of under-occupation; many of the houses are under-occupied. On the estates old people are left in possession of three-bedroomed houses, and no attempt is made to put larger families into those houses, although there is ample accommodation. Sometimes there is only one person in a three-bedroomed house, and no attempt is made to move that

  2461
  person to other accommodation. It is not so much a question of lack of accommodation as of maldistribution of accommodation. That applies equally to privately-owned houses.
  Never does a house become vacant in my constituency without it being put up for sale. I have endeavoured to get landlords to rent such houses to people in need. Occasionally I have been successful and they have let them at a restricted rent, but it has been pointed out to me—not in bitterness, but as a matter of factual record—that it is impossible for an estate to continue ownership of those houses if they are to be let at the rents to which they are restricted today. It is quite impossible; they are not in business to lose money and have no pride in keeping houses they cannot maintain in good repair. Until that problem is solved we shall not break the back of the problem as a whole. If, in view of the large number of houses built since the war, Which has accounted for the houses demolished during the war and the increase in population——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is now going beyond the limits of debate on Third Reading.
  Mr. Pannell: I will wind up by saying that if all relevant factors are taken into account and the Bill is regarded without prejudice, hon. Members will come to the conclusion that the burden falling on tenants need not be in any way onerous. I conclude by giving my support to the Bill.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House that Liverpool has on its housing register at the moment 45,000 applicants for accommodation? Will he also tell the House that, fortunately for the people of Liverpool, the Labour Party has control in that city at the moment?
  Mr. Pannell: I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Lady for the method of control in the city, but I agree that there are 45,000 on the housing list and Liverpool is building 3,000 houses a year. There is no possibility of solving the problem at that rate. When there was a Socialist Administration in the country there was a waiting list of 55,000 and the authority was building only 2,000 houses a year.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: Those of us who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) have come to the conclusion that he really and truly let the cat out of the bag about the real purpose and intention of the Bill.
  This Measure, as the hon. Member said, really originated from the Budget policy of the Government as laid down in the autumn of last year to meet the national emergency. He said that its intention was to halt inflation. That means to reduce expenditure—not only to reduce the Exchequer contribution to housing, but to reduce the expenditure of local authorities for the same purpose. He said quite the opposite from what the Minister said. The right hon. Gentleman has been misleading the House throughout by telling us that his policy is to encourage local authorities to build more and more houses, not only for slum clearance, but for general purposes.
  If in fact local authorities build more and more houses, then, on the policy of the Government, they will be increasing the inflationary tendency in the country. Therefore, if the Bill does not result in a reduction of expenditure on housing— to say nothing about other local authority expenditure—it will have failed in its purpose. The intention of the Bill is precisely to run down the housing schemes of local authorities and to reduce the amount of capital investment in this social service.
  A number of statements has been made by the Minister as to the merits of this Measure, and throughout the Committee Stage he and the Parliamentary Secretary tried to give the impression that it was designed to provide an incentive for and to stimulate slum clearance. That is a complete and utter fallacy. There is no incentive whatever, unless he assumes that an incentive to build houses for slum clearances is provided by reducing and abolishing the subsidy on houses for other purposes. That is not an incentive. It is not even a financial incentive, because the right hon. Member himself, when he made a statement to the House on housing subsidies on 27th October last, said:
  "At present, the basic annual Exchequer subsidy is about £22 per house. That figure was fixed a year ago. Since then rates of interest on loans have risen appreciably, and if we were to follow the previous practice of adjusting subsidies to take account of such

  2463
  changes the basic subsidy would now have to be raised to well over £30. But the Government do not consider that such an increase is either necessary or desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 379.]
  If he were truly providing an incentive for slum clearance, he would not be offering a £22 subsidy but a £30 subsidy. Therefore, he is offering a lower subsidy for slum clearance and taking no account whatever of the increased costs arising from increased interest rates on housing loans, which adds many shillings a week, dependent on what part of the country one is talking about, to the rents which have to be paid.
  The problem for many people who live in the slums is not merely that of getting a better home. The majority of those who live in slums do not live there because they like it. They are driven there because, in the main, they are in the lower income group, and, as a general rule, the rents which they pay are rather below, and often well below, the average.
  The financing of the slum clearance schemes must cause the slum dwellers to face increased rents, often twice as high as those they are now paying. That increase in rent will be brought about because the right hon. Gentleman is not paying the proper rate of subsidy for slum clearance. He is putting up the rate of interest on loans and sending up costs and he is abolishing subsidies on other forms of housing, which will raise the general level of rents, including the rents of slum tenants rehoused in other places. The net result is that he will be placing an intolerable rent burden on people who are to be rehoused from the slums.
  There is no incentive in the Bill for local authorities to pursue schemes of slum clearance. I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman one instance of the effect of the Bill upon a scheme in my constituency. We have heard much talk from hon. Members opposite to the effect, "Well, this does not involve very much in increased rents—7d. a week," and a lot of silly nonsense of that kind. These are instances of two schemes, either under construction or about to be constructed, in my constituency and the effect which the Bill will have upon rents. They relate to flats in four-storey blocks. The reduced subsidy will mean a rise of 9s. 6d. a week in the rents of the flats. In addition, the result so far of the increase in
  2464
  interest rates to 5 per cent.—and the rates are now running at 5½ per cent., and not merely 5 per cent.—means an addition of l1s. 3d. a week for interest charges alone.
  If all subsidies are to be abolished on this type of construction, as the Minister says is his intention, because these are flats for general housing needs—technically, my constituency has no slums, but it does have intense overcrowding and these flats are being built to relieve overcrowding—within a year or two the abolition of the subsidy will raise the rents by £1 2s. 6d. a week, in addition to the increased costs due to increased interest charges on housing loans of l1s. 3d. a week. The rents of the flats in these four-storey blocks will, therefore, increase by 33s. 9d. a week. I have not time to elaborate or to relate the many examples in which the increase of rent will be much higher.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that for a year or two we may be able to spread the load amongst all the other tenants, but my constituency does not have a very big pre-war pool of houses. Even in those that exist, the rents are very high compared with country districts, and there is a saturation point which will be reached in about 12 to 18 months' time. When we arrive at that point, we shall find it physically impossible to continue our general housing schemes on the same scale.
  The Bill is one of the most reactionary Measures ever to come before this House. The housing problem is as acute today as ever it was. The Minister has tried to make out that, because over 2 million houses have been built since 1945, the problem has eased, but it has not eased at all. The number of marriages since 1939 is 6,493,000. If we deduct the number of family units who have died during that time, totalling 2,900,000, we are left with a net figure of 3,593,000 married couples since 1939 for whom housing accommodation has to be provided.
  Since 1939, we have built about 2,061,000 houses. This leaves a shortage of approximately 1,500,000 houses for the accommodation of those who have been married since 1939. In addition, however, 200,000 inhabited houses fall out of use every year through decay. They have to be closed and their occupants have to be found other

  2465
  accommodation. If we add the annual 200,000 to the deficiency of 1,500,000, we get some idea of the present-day housing problem.
  Since 1938, the population has increased by 3,290,000. The significant fact is that, although the population has increased by more than 3 million, the number of marriages is less than in 1938. For the last three years, the number of marriages has been progressively falling. In 1954 the number of marriages was about 392,000, as against 409,000 in 1938. This signifies that young men and women now are hesitating to get married because the problem of getting a home is becoming more and more difficult. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that is a good thing for the country, but we on this side of the House think nothing of the kind. Therefore, I hope the House will reject this Bill tonight because of its reactionary nature, and because it will perpetuate social evils throughout the country, I hope we shall demonstrate our feeling about it in the Lobby.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: We have reached now the final stage of this Bill in this House, and I want to make one or two observations about what has happened since the Second Reading. The Minister will recall that discussions took place through the usual channels in order to come to some arrangement about the time to be allotted to Committee. I am not complaining that we did not have sufficient time. I think we had plenty of time—at least, plenty of time for the right hon. Gentleman to have changed his mind on several occasions. We decided for the convenience of the House to adopt a rather novel experiment. It was that we should have a self-imposed timetable, self-imposed on the Opposition, by which we would allot to the various Amendments what time we considered the Amendments themselves deserved. This was in my Parliamentary experience, which goes back over many years, an unusual device. We are now in the position to assess whether the experiment was justified or not.
  The purpose of the experiment was not only to allow hon. Members to go home at 10 o'clock. It was not only to meet the convenience of Members of the House, but was also to try to find out
  2466
  whether such an arrangement would induce in the Government a more accommodating disposition. I am bound to say it was a complete failure. I have rarely seen a Bill less amended than this one— an important Bill of this sort which arouses intense opposition throughout the country, which has been opposed by all the local authority associations, which has been hotly debated in every council chamber in Great Britain, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said in opening the debate for this side of the House today, has given occasion for unprecedented opposition by some local authority associations. Nevertheless, at the end of the Committee we had to recall that, apart from a triviality, there had been no Amendment of any sort accepted by the Government.
  That is a pretty sorry picture, and I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is nothing to be proud about. Anyone can sit there nowadays, in the present state of the party machines, with empty benches behind him. Throughout the Committee hardly any attention at all was given to the Measure by his followers. I believe they had to take some steps to whip up a few spokesmen today. It was obvious from the nature of the speeches they made that they had not had time to think about them very much. They had to make a show, and they made it, and we are grateful to them, because, after all, it is better to see threadbare limbs than no limbs at all. As far as I can see, a repetition of this experiment is not likely to be any more successful than this one has been. I state my own personal views without consulting my colleagues, but when we come to consider Bills of this stature in the future we shall have to reconsider the whole of this procedure, and whether we ought not to give hon. Members opposite a more uncomfortable time to make them a little bit more sensible.
  I now turn to my second point, and I make it in all seriousness. This country is passing through a very grave crisis. We are in a very serious situation. In fact, in my opinion, we are in a worse position than at any time in the last twenty years. It is all the worse because of the fact that we are supposed to be prosperous. However, it may be that in a week or so we shall have a discussion on the economic situation.

  2467
  Everyone is waiting to hear what the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has to propose in order to undo the mischief for part of which he himself was responsible. The reputation of one statesman has been used up in. the course of the last few years by attempts to produce the policies which his back-benchers wanted him to produce. He produced them—no one can say that he did not—and he has produced an economic crisis at the same time.
  This Measure, which is a major Measure, has to be considered against the background of the country's economic and financial circumstances. It also has to be considered against the background of the fact that for this Measure hon. Members opposite possess no mandate at all. I want to remind them once more, because they will now hear about it very much more than they have done, that at the last General Election they deliberately deceived the country. They withheld from the knowledge of the electorate the proposals which they knew they were hatching.
  The right hon. Gentleman told the House on Second Reading that he made up his mind about this Measure after the General Election. I tell him, frankly, that I do not believe him. I think he was telling an untruth. When he says that the Government did not have a Measure of this sort in mind before the General Election, I do not believe him. We know very well from speeches made by hon. Members opposite here and in the country that attacks on housing subsidies have been in the minds of the Conservatives for the last three or four years. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman tries to pretend that at the last General Election the Conservatives did not state their intentions to the electorate because they did not have such intentions, we just do not believe it.
  We know very well that at the last General Election the Conservative Party put no policy before the country in this respect or any other. All hon. Members opposite said was "We have done very well so far. Send us back, and we will keep on doing it." They have kept on doing it. They went to the country without a mandate to do any other than they had been doing. Parliament resumed un-refreshed, unrenovated and as lethargic as it had been before the General Election.
  2468
  However, having won their majority, hon. Gentlemen opposite then proceeded to use it to do other things which they had concealed from the electorate. Having done so, they do not even bother to attend the Chamber. They do not bother to listen to the arguments. Having won a majority by sleight of hand, they do not even worry their heads about working out the matter. And then they begin to wonder why it is that in this financial and economic crisis there are strikes all over the country.
  Have hon. Members not yet come to realise that when they undermine the stature and authority of Parliament people outside try to redress wrongs in their own way? Do they think that there is no connection whatsoever between the present wave of industrial unrest and the cynical deception of which they have been guilty? Do they imagine that those circumstances have nothing to do with the fact that industry after industry is deeply disturbed with strikes, on or pending, and with wage negotiations of the most massive kind involving hundreds of millions of pounds? Yet the Cabinet proposes to Parliament a Measure whose effect is to raise rents all round.
  What do they think industrial organisations will do? I want to know from the Minister whether he really believes that at the end of this Measure he will have saved a brass farthing. If it is a fact that the present Measure is intended, as the Parliamentary Secretary said it was, to raise rents to the point where it would pay private enterprise to build houses for rent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quote."] The Parliamentary Secretary has been promoted——
  Mr. Douglas Glover: And the right hon. Gentleman has not.
  Mr. Bevan: I must say that is a pretty weak one. It had no malice or wit.
  I do not want to quote too much, because the Parliamentary Secretary can look after his own speech. He said:
  "Another feature which we have to take into account is that today, owing to full employment and the opportunities for women to be employed, the average family income has risen much more steeply than the average earnings of male wage earners. There is, therefore, a considerable margin to play with between the average family earnings today as compared with 1939 and the current cost of building today as compared with 1939 …

  2469
  In view of these facts, it seems to me impossible to claim that for the majority of families in this country it is unreasonable to expect that they should be able to pay the current economic value of the accommodation which they reasonably require."
  If that means anything at all, it means that rents must rise to the point where it would be economic for private owners to build houses to rent. If it does not mean that, it means nothing, and I give the hon. Gentleman the credit that when he speaks it does mean something, however unpleasant it may be. He went on:
  "Or, to put it another way"—
  so there will be no misapprehension—
  "that they cannot or will not demand decent accommodation for themselves and their families, and that the building industry and the existing stock of houses are not capable of complying with that need and that demand."
  To make doubly sure, he goes on:
  "We on this side of the House"—
  he meant hon. Members opposite— [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]— they are beginning to come in a little better—
  "We on this side of the House believe that, in conditions in which the country can demand and obtain an ever-rising standard in all other fields, essential and inessential, it is absurd to say that the British people cannot, or will not, house themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 1091–4.]
  That means that they will rent houses from the private landlords. It does not mean that they will go to the local authority, because his whole argument was that there was no reason why private enterprise should not build adequate housing for rent.
  The corollary of that is that therefore rents must rise to the level where it pays landlords to build houses at a profit to rent. Everybody knows that that position has not yet been reached, and therefore the policy of the hon. Member is to let rents rise until that position has been reached. But, of course, since then he has been promoted. Now he is in the Government and now, as a member of the Government, he says something different. I do not quarrel with him. He is entitled to earn what he can get.
  He has now changed his views. He said today in the speech with which he opened this debate, "We expect that local authorities will go on providing houses for general need." That was his
  2470
  statement today. Indeed, he went on to say that he did not expect—and the right hon. Gentleman has said this too—that they do not expect that the housing activities of local authorities will be reduced. Oh, no. What they said was that they expected that housing activities would be at the same level but more resources would be diverted to slum clearance and less to housing general needs. Is not that what they said? I am prepared to give way if I have misrepresented them. I understood them to say that the whole emphasis of this Bill is for local authorities to build less houses for general housing need and more houses for slum clearance. Is that right? I should like to know. The whole House would like to know.
  Is it intended that the expenditure of local authorities on housing activities should be undiminished? We should like to know. The right hon. Gentleman has his opportunity, is that what he means? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We should like to know whether one part of this Government knows what the other part is doing. Again I repeat that there can be no misunderstanding because the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is quite clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Oh, yes, he is quite clear. He can see the precipice yawning before him, and he unhesitatingly marches towards it.
  Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman is quite unfair. May I say that I do not want any one to stab me in the back and push me over it?
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is in no danger, he is showing every sign of receeding life. What did he say just now? He said that he believed it was desirable that there should be a reduction of housing subsidies in order that there should be a reduction of house building. That is what he told us. He said that it is necessary that there should be disinflation, that it is necessary that there should be a reduction in capital expenditure. Now he disagrees with the right hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that I used the word "disinflation." Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman

  2471
  to state that I used the words "disinflation" and "reduction in capital expenditure" when I never used such terms at all?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Bevan: I am bound to warn the hon. Gentleman that if he interrupts me I shall take it out of the Minister's time. My hon. Friends on this side of the House —of course there was hardly anybody on the benches opposite—will recollect that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that there should be a reduction in the amount spent on houses and, therefore, in the number of houses built. He quoted the analogy of my late right hon. Friend Sir Stafford Cripps on food subsidies. Therefore, there was no sense in what he said unless he was talking about a reduction in capital expenditure.
  That is what he said, but the hon. Gentleman does not agree with his right hon. Friend the Minister because the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that, even if there is a reduction of housing subsidies, the local authorities will not diminish their housing activities. I hate to see this disagreement on the other side of the House. Not only is there confusion between the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, but it is nothing like the confusion between him and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not only this Chancellor but the last one as well.
  What has been happening, of course, is that since these measures were framed and since these intentions were gestated, a change has taken place. The Conservatives have discovered that the free-for-all to which they pin their faith is now bringing the country to disaster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are now discovering that everything that they have been saying for the last four years was utter nonsense, that Great Britain is in a very dangerous and difficult position from which she can only be rescued by bold and imaginative action by the Government and not by leaving it to the "pull devil, pull baker" in the market place, and not by leaving it to personal and private greed and to private economic venture, but by Government action, in fact by Government interference and by Government intervention.
  2472
  All that hon. Members opposite are worried about is what form that intervention takes. So far, of course, it has taken the clumsy form of an increase in the Bank Rate which has put local authorities everywhere in difficulty. That is a clumsy, indelicate instrument which falls quite often upon the innocent and which puts upon the bank managers the obligation that the Government ought to discharge.
  So far it has been left to that instrument, and that instrument has failed. Now the Chancellor has to consider some other method. But the right hon. Gentleman is not co-operating with him. He said, "Oh no, I am not going to reduce the capital expenditure; I am only going to switch it from general housing to slum clearance. I am going to give the local authorities incentives to do more slum clearance and to build less houses for general needs."
  Of course, the right hon. Gentleman's idea of incentives is not to lighten the burden of one runner in the race, but to put clamps on the other. If one leads the one down, the other will win the race. It is the most extraordinary description of incentives that I have ever known. The right hon. Gentleman might have kept the housing subsidies and so allowed the local authorities themselves to decide freely how they would dispose of their resources for slum clearance or general needs.
  The right hon. Gentleman has talked much about leaving the local authorities free. Why did he not leave them free? There was no need to reduce housing subsidies in order that local authorities might clear more slums. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman could have retained the subsidies and the local authorities would have done this. In any case, he has all the loan sanction powers he needs. He did not need this devious trick of transferring burdens from well-to-do taxpayers to council tenants in order to enable more slums to be pulled down. He can either sanction or not sanction the scheme.
  Capital development is in the right hon. Gentleman's own hands in his Department. In any case, hon. Members are deceiving themselves. The local authorities intended to do more slum clearance than this Bill allows them to do. This

  2473
  is not a slum clearance Bill at all. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has left his high office and has taken an office even more onerous at the moment, on 26th October last year said this:
  "In the next 18 months or so, however, the capital expenditure of the local authorities may be expected to fall."
  Is it to fall? We should like to know whether there are to be fewer houses for general need or less slum clearance. Then, he said this:
  "It is probable that the reduction in housing expenditure will continue;"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 214.]
  But the hon. Member today said the opposite—that it is going to go up. I do not like to see this confusion of counsel in the Government, and I hope that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to read his language tomorrow he will regard it as merely the foolishness and a slip of the tongue of an inexperienced Under-Secretary.
  But the fact is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects the Minister of Housing and Local Government to cause the local authorities to build fewer houses, and this Bill is the financial instrument by which that is to be brought about. So it would be very much better if the Government were really clear about it, because it really is not good enough to face a crisis of these dimensions by such legerdemain as that. It would be much better for the country to know how many houses the local authorities are expected to build; in other words, it would be much better if the resources of the nation were applied intelligently. [Laughter.]
  Hon. Members may laugh, but it is perfectly true, and I have been chided on more than one occasion when we stated the number of houses which we thought —[An HON. MEMBER: "TWO hundred thousand."] Certainly, of course. Is the hon. Gentleman just waking up? That has been said over and over again. We said that in our view at this moment the housing programme of the country should march at that pace, and that capital expenditure on schools, hospitals, factories and elsewhere should also march with it. What did hon. Members opposite say? They said "Not march, but scramble," and the result is that they have scrambled and we are faced with the present situation.
  I said at the beginning that I wanted to give the right hon. Gentleman the 35
  2474
  minutes for which he asked. Let me end by saying that we have always regarded housing as a very important part of the social and economic activity of the country as a whole. We have always believed that housing could be used not only to swell or to diminish the total volume of capital expenditure, but also to guide the nation's resources where these are most needed in the nation's interests; that we should, in fact, build houses where they were most needed and where they would make the biggest contribution to the nation's economic survival.
  We believe that we cannot measure the success of housing merely by the number of houses that are built but by where we build them. I will give hon. Members a clear illustration of that now. It does not make a contribution towards the nation's recovery, it does not help us to get out of our difficulties, it does not help the balance of our trade when we find that very large numbers of bungalows are being built by building societies on the edges of our towns and cities, when hardly any building has been done at all in the deep rural areas, where we need to produce food in order to reduce our balance of payments difficulties.
  In other words, the Government have abandoned housing as an instrument of national planning. The consequences are coming home to roost. Hon. Members opposite can grin as much as they like, but they will be grinning on the other side of their faces in a fortnight's time, when the Chancellor tells them the price they have had to pay for their stupidity in the last four years.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am sure that we have all listened with enjoyment to the characteristic speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). We have had some very long debates on the Bill and have explored every Clause and paragraph over and over again—so much so that you, Mr. Speaker, had to explain how it was that on the Report stage the Amendments which were being accepted for discussion were all upon points which had been fully discussed during the Committee stage.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale yesterday referred to his own amiability in the course of the debate, and I should

  2475
  like to thank him for it We appreciate the amiable way in which the debates have been conducted, and not least the amiability of the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their co-operation in seeing the Bill through all its stages without causing us to resort to time tables or Closure Motions.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a rather unworthy allusion, however, to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that my hon. Friend was entitled to earn what he could by being a Parliamentary Secretary, or words to that effect. If there is an underpaid job in this country it is that of a Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Bevan: I accept that.
  Mr. Lewis: The Parliamentary Secretary opposed an increase.
  Mr. Sandys: I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the contribution made to these debates by my hon. Friend, whose mastery of this subject has more than once impressed hon. Members. I would also like to express my appreciation to his predecessor, who helped me during the earlier stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Monslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he is going to reach the benediction?
  Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that he made no complaint about the amount of time allotted to these debates. I am grateful to him for saying that. He accused me—I did not altogether understand him—of changing my mind on several occasions, and yet, almost in the same breath, he said that his complaint was that an insufficient number of Amendments had been accepted, and that the Bill had gone through with practically no worth-while changes. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman looking so surprised—the whole House has heard him. If this Bill has gone through with very few Amendments it means that it has stood up well to the scrutiny of the House in ten days of discussion and debate.
  This Measure contains three main provisions. It reduces the subsidy for general needs from £22 to £10. Once again, I wish to make it quite clear that it is our intention to abolish this subsidy for
  2476
  general need altogether within the next year or so. At the same time, the Bill maintains the subsidy at the existing level for slum clearance, and it increases it slightly in respect of houses for overspill and for certain other purposes.
  The object of the Bill is to provide a new and more realistic structure for our housing finance. In doing that we are pursuing four aims. The first is to ensure that, as far as possible, subsidies are provided to the extent that they are needed—and only to that extent. The second aim is to encourage local authorities to devote a higher proportion of their building effort to the task of rehousing families from the slums who have not been getting their fair share of the new houses. The third is to ensure the continued progress of new towns and town expansions in order to accommodate overspill population from the congested areas. The fourth is to make special provision for the housing of work people coming into an area to meet the needs of an important industry which is short of labour.
  Those are all objects which, I should have thought, would have commended themselves to every responsible person. I have no doubt that, in their hearts, hon. Members opposite know that what this Bill sets out to do is sound, right and fair. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think, the Labour Party has decided, as a matter of political tactics, to issue instructions to their supporters all over the country to miss no opportunity to put the blame on the Tories. We did not expect otherwise. We are quite prepared to wait and to allow this policy to be judged by its results. We are confident that those results will prove to be wholly beneficial.
  In announcing the introduction of the Bill on 27th October last I said that, in the Government's opinion
  "…the amount of subsidy which the Exchequer is now paying out in respect of existing houses is unnecessarily large and provides a margin which could properly be used for financing some part of the future house-building programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 379.]
  In other words, provided local authorities pool all the money they receive in subsidies and spread it over all their houses, there is absolutely no reason why, except in certain special cases, they should find

  2477
  any difficulty in building the houses they need and letting them at rents which the tenants can afford to pay.
  Mr. Lindgren: Sheer nonsense.
  Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member describes that as sheer nonsense.
  Mr. Lindgren: Since the Minister made that statement, as a result of the increase in interest rates the rent of a normal £1,500 house has risen by 1s. 8d. a week.
  Mr. Sandys: I will not use the expression "nonsense," which the hon. Member used. Nothing has been said in the course of the ten days' debate to disprove the contention which I made. It has been said, although I notice that it has been said less and less as the debates have proceeded, that as a result of the Bill local authorities will stop building houses. That is not only an absurd, but, I think, a thoroughly unworthy suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is unworthy because it implies that local authorities will shirk their responsibilities.
  Mr. Bevan: Information is, of course, coming through to us all the time. Is it unworthy for local authorities now to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects them to do?
  Mr. Sandys: I do not see what that has to do with it. Nobody has ever suggested that the Government are asking local authorities to stop building houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said earlier this afternoon, local authorities are not actuated solely by narrow considerations of finance. Housing is one of their main duties, and they will go on discharging it even if the Exchequer assistance is reduced.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Where is the Chancellor?
  Mr. Sandys: I was asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough to look up my Department's Press cuttings and to see how many local authorities had, since the introduction of the Bill, decided to stop building houses. As far as I know, apart from East Ashford, which the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, only one authority, the Kingswood Urban District Council, has announced a decision to stop house building. I can see no reason why either of those two authorities could not well continue to build houses if they so
  2478
  desired, and I have little doubt that when these authorities see that other local authorities throughout the country intend to carry on building the houses which they need, they will reconsider their decision.
  I explained to the House that the subsidy reductions embodied in the Bill, together with the increase in interest rates since the subsidy was last fixed, would involve an annual increase in the average weekly rent of no more than about 7d. Reference has been made to the fact that since then interest rates have risen further. The further recent rise in interest rates would raise the figure of 7d., which I quoted before, to about 8d. That is the effect of the increase.
  Figures quoted all the time have been merely of the additional cost of a new house without reference to pooling of subsidies. Apart from a few exceptional cases, such as the small rural districts referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, no hon. Member in the whole course of these debates has quoted figures to show that, if subsidies are pooled, council house rents would, as a result of this Bill, have to be raised to any inordinate extent. I cannot believe that those figures, if they were forthcoming, would not have been produced during the ten days of debate.
  Mr. Lindgren: I gave figures today to show what it means in regard to the increase in rent.
  Mr. Sandys: All the figures which have been quoted—figures of 14s., 15s., 16s., and so on—merely express the additional cost of the new dwellings on the assumption that the subsidies on existing dwellings are not pooled and spread over all the houses. Since the point has been pursued again today, it may interest the House if I give a few examples of how this 8d. calculation works out in some representative local authority areas. I have chosen constituencies of hon. Members who have taken an active part in our debates. I will read the figures. In the case of Kettering, the amount will be 8d.; in Wellingborough, 9d.; in Ebbw Vale, 8½d.; in Cannock, 6½d.; in Manchester, 5d.; in Birmingham, 6d.; in Salford, 7d.; in Henley, 9d.; in Newcastle, ll½d.; in Crosby, 10d., and in Southampton, 1s. 1d.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to Newcastle, will

  2479
  he make it clear that these are cumulative increases each year? Does he realise that already in Newcastle 4s. 6d. has to be added as the increased rent which will have to be demanded and that further increases are threatened?
  Mr. Sandys: I did make that clear. I said that it is the annual increase in the average weekly rent. That could not be clearer.
  I will now give the other figures: Widnes, 8d. and Liverpool, 7½d.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: What about Wandsworth?
  Mr. Sandys: The position in Metropolitan boroughs is complicated by the fact that a lot of the housing is done by the L.C.C.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to my constituency, but if he goes to Corby, where there is no room to pool, he will find that council house rents —not corporation houses—will have to go up in proportion to the cost of each house. Of course, it depends on the size of the pool in different areas. What the right hon. Gentleman has also not said is that this will go on increasing year by year.
  Mr. Sandys: I cannot object to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) not listening to me, but, if he would listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lind-gren), who asked me to make it clear that it was an annual increase, he would know that I have said so. I repeat it once again for the benefit of the hon. and learned Member.
  Mr. Sparks: Therefore, the more the building the higher the rent.
  Mr. Sandys: These calculations are made on the basis which I explained in the Second Reading debate. If rents are, in fact, put up by more than these amounts it will be for other reasons, and responsibility for that cannot be attributed to the provisions of this Bill, or to the increase in interest rates.
  Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is most unfair to local authorities to say that. He has just told us that these increases
  2480
  are cumulative and he knows that they depend on the size of the pool in each area, even if the local authorities do choose to pool, as most of them do.
  Mr. Sandys: Of course, they depend on the pool in each area. That is why the figures which I read out vary from area to area. What I said was that if rents are put up by an extent which is greater than the result of the calculations which I have given, this is due to some other reason.
  Mr. Callaghan: That only applies for the first year.
  Mr. Sandys: How many more times have I to say that? However, as I have myself pointed out, there are bound to be areas where conditions differ widely from the general average, and, while basing our policy upon the circumstances which prevail in the overwhelming majority of areas, we are taking power to provide additional financial assistance in cases where it is needed. Authorities which are faced with an exceptionally difficult financial problem will be able to apply for special grants under Clause 5, referred to during the debate.
  There is, therefore, I maintain, absolutely no justification whatsoever for anyone to say that this Bill will prevent any local authority from building the houses which it needs and letting them at rents which the tenants can reasonably afford to pay.
  Mr. Lewis: When the right hon. Gentleman mentions any local authority which may have exceptional financial hardship, would that include areas which were badly blitzed, have lost most of their property because of the blitz, have lost rates and have now had to make good without the subsidy?
  Mr. Sandys: If such a local authority qualifies under the conditions of Clause 5, it will be included in the same way as any other local authority.
  Mr. Lewis: What I am trying to get clear is this. Would these local authorities be classified as having special, exceptional circumstances and qualify under Clause 5? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an affirmative answer now?
  Mr. Sandys: If their financial circumstances are such as to qualify them under Clause 5, they can, of course, apply.

  2481
  Because an area has been blitzed, it does not necessarily follow that it will be in greater financial need than some other areas. There are different circumstances which arise in different areas which may cause financial difficulty. Therefore, I repeat that there is no justification whatsoever for advancing the view that as a result of the Bill any local authority will be prevented from building the houses it needs and letting them at rents which the tenants can afford to pay. Anyone who asserts to the contrary is either being ignorant or mischievous.
  There are certain indirect effects which will flow from this Bill to which I should like to refer. One is the introduction of differential rents. The Bill does not require local authorities to adopt differential rent schemes. These are not mentioned in the whole of the Bill. However, when local authorities come to review their rent policies——
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the Third Reading and differential rents are not mentioned in the Bill. Is it in order at the last moment to introduce them?
  Mr. Speaker: If they are not included in the Bill, the House is not allowed to mention them. The House is really bound by the contents of the Bill on Third Reading.
  Mr. Sandys: I thought it was in order to mention the effect of the Bill. Its effect undoubtedly will be to encourage local authorities to adopt differential rent schemes.
  Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. The effect of the Bill may be all sorts of things; one has only to exercise one's imagination. But differential rents are not contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: If what the Minister says is right—and I am bound to take it from him that one effect of the Bill as it stands is to concentrate attention, or whatever the phrase may be, on differential rents —I should think that that would be in order. But the fact that there are no specific provisions for differential rents would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from mentioning sums and matters of that kind.
  Mr. Bevan: Mr. Deputy-Speaker has been ruling very narrowly indeed on
  2482
  Third Reading. It might easily be argued that as a consequence of the Bill, local authorities will build such small houses that people will not be able to keep even rabbits in them. Can I argue the desirability of keeping rabbits?
  Mr. Speaker: If there were more time and the right hon. Gentleman had leisure to develop his argument, I think it would be in order.
  Mr. Sandys: I am extremely surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's point of order considering the extent to which HANSARD is filled with his own remarks on the subject of differential rents during the course of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Committee."]—during the Committee stage, when considering Amendments which had nothing whatever to do with differential rents.
  When local authorities come to review their rent policies, as they will now have to do, I have no doubt that many of them will decide to adopt some form of differential rent schemes. There has been a remarkable—probably that is why hon. Members opposite are a little sensitive about it—change of heart in the Labour Party on the subject of differential rents. Only a few months ago, hon. Members opposite were hotly opposed to the principle of differential rents.
  Mr. Lindgren: We still are.
  Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member says that his party is still opposed to it; but, as I understand, not only do hon. Members opposite now support the principle of differential rents, but they have given their blessing to rent rebate schemes with a means test.
  Mr. Lindgren: This is the closing stage of the debate, in which this point has not been dealt with because it would have been out of order. This is grossly unfair and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that at this stage of the debate, as it is outside the scope of the Bill, it ought not to be included, particularly as the statements made by the Minister tend to mislead the statements previously made.
  Mr. Speaker: I am told that one effect of the Bill is that it will lead to these things—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or will lead people to consider them—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Order! I think the House is entitled, on the Third Reading of a Bill, to consider the effects of

  2483
  the Bill as it stands. What the House cannot do is to go into matters that are not in the Bill and have no connection with the text of the Bill.
  Mr. Bevan: For the most part of the evening, we have been in the hands of Mr. Deputy-Speaker and on several occasions when hon. Members have gone outside the terms of the Bill they have been called to order. This is the last speech. There is no mention of differential rents in the Bill whatsoever. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, as one with some experience of the House of Commons, that this is entirely out of order at this stage.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member and myself, I think, have the same experience of the House of Commons. We came in in the same year. I do not know what happened when I was out of the Chair. I have myself had occasion to check hon. Members for bringing in matters which have been excluded from the terms of the Bill by the defeat of Amendments. That is all very well, but I cannot quite follow the stage we are at now. I thought the Minister was arguing that as the result of the Bill many local authorities might go in for differential rents. It seems quite reasonable to me to mention the effects of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale might have said—in fact, did say in his speech—that as a result of this Bill local authorities will stop building houses. These things might happen, and it is in order to mention them.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Further to that point of order. I have been trying to find out
  what is in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] This is the Third Reading. I can quite understand that the Minister, in view of what is supposed to be in the Bill, wants to talk about anything else but what is in the Bill, but I am anxious to hear what he has to say about it, and I cannot understand him.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that in the few minutes that remain for this debate the House should listen to the right hon. Gentleman, and then, perhaps, the hon. Lady's curiosity will be satisfied.
  Mr. Sandys: I shall not pursue the question of differential rents any further except to say that we now know that differential rents and rebate schemes can henceforth be regarded as accepted articles of bi-partisan housing policy.
  As I explained on Second Reading, this Measure forms part of a coherent and comprehensive policy to build new houses, to preserve the old houses which are sound, and to speed the clearance of the slums. The success of any housing policy depends upon its having a sound financial basis. I commend the Bill to the House because I am confident that it will help to put the structure of housing finance on to a fairer, surer, and more realistic footing. We know that the party opposite will do everything it can to throw an unfavourable light upon this Measure and the policy which lies behind it. We are prepared to face temporary unpopularity and misrepresentation, for we are confident that the local authorities and the public at large will, before long, recognise the necessity for this reform, and will respect the sincerity of our motives.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 246.

  Division No. 109.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P, G.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Beamish, Maj, Tufton

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Alport, C. J. M,

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Bryan, P.

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Ashton, H.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Campbell, Sir David

  Atkins, H. E.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Carr, Robert

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Body, R. F.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Channon, H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Barber, Anthony

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Barter, John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Page, R. G.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Partridge, E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Joseph, Capt. Sir Keith Sinjohn

  Pott, H. P.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir Leonard

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kaberry, D.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Keegan, D.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA(Warwick&L'm'tn)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Lancaster, Col C. G.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Fell, A.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Russell, R. S.

  Fort, R.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Freeth, D. K.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Gammans, Sir David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sharples, R. C.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Shepherd, William

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lucas,P.B.(Brentford & Chiswick)

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Glover, D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Godber, J. B.

  McAdden, s. J,

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Gower, H. R.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Green, A.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Grimond, J.

  Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Macieod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Gurden, Harold

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Storey, S.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maitland.Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Teeling, W.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Marples, A. E.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon,S.)

  Hay, John

  Mathew, R.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. M.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mawby, R. L.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Vickers, Miss J. H.

  Hinchingbrooke, viscount

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Wade, D. W.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Holt, A. F.

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Neave, Airey

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E, & Chr'ch)

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)

  Howard, John (Test)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewlsham, N.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D,

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Hutchison,SirlanClark(E'b'gh, W.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hutchison, Sir James

  Osborne, C.

  Mr. Redmayne and

  Mr. Edward Wakefield.

  2486

  2487

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Hastings, S.

  Parker, J.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Healey, Denis

  Paton, J.

  Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Peart, T. F.

  Anderson, Frank

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Baird, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Probert, A. R.

  Balfour, A.

  Holman, P,

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bartley, P.

  Holmes, Horace

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Randall, H. E.

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Rankin, John

  Benson, G.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Reeves, J.

  Beswick, F.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Reid, William

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Boardman, H.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

  Irving, S. (Dartford)

  Ross, William

  Bowles, F. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Royle, C.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Janner, B.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Short, E. W.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs.S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brieriey Hill)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Snow, J. W.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Carmichael, J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Steele, T.

  Champion, A. J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Clunie, J.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Coldrick, W.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh & Finsbury

  Lewis, Arthur

  Swingler, S. T.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M,

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Cronin, J. D.

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Cullen, Mrs. A

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Daines, P.

  McGovern, J.

  Thornton, E.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Mclnnes, J.

  Timmons, J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Deer, G.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Usborne, H. C.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Mahon, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Dye, S.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfd. E.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Edelman, M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly

  Mason, Roy

  West, D. G.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Messer, Sir F.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Monslow, W.

  Wigg, George

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Moody, A. S.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Finch, H. J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Moss, R.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (A'b'tillery)

  Forman, J. C.

  Moyle, A.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Gibson, C. W.

  O'Brien, T.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilson, Rt. Hou. Harold (Huyton)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oram, A. E.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Grey, C. F.

  Orbach, M.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oswald, T.

  Woof, R. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Owen, W. J.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Padley, W. E.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Hale, Leslie

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannan, W.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

  Question put and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION, &c.
  Miss Pitt discharged from the Select Committee; Viscountess Davidson added.—[Mr. Studholme.]

  TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, WEMBLEY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]
  10.10 p.m.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: A few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation announced that his Department intended to concentrate on schemes to improve traffic conditions in and around towns and cities, because he considered that new roads were of no use if old bottlenecks remained. Most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I am sure, subscribe to this view. That is the reason why I am bringing to the notice of my right hon. Friend two bottlenecks to traffic and to progress in the Borough of Wembley which he could help to eliminate.
  Road reconstruction work has been going on at Blackbird Hill, Kingsbury, during the last few months, and this has caused a considerable amount of inconvenience to the genera] public. Naturally, the Wembley Borough Council is much concerned at this state of affairs. In a council debate, one member described the traffic conditions at Blackbird Hill as "chaotic" and the Town Clerk, at the behest of the council, has written to me, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) on the subject.
  Owing to the nature of the traffic using Blackbird Hill, long queues develop in the morning and evening, and in the rush hours it is not exceptional for delays to occur at this point for as long as 15 minutes. Such delays would be tolerable were it possible to limit the period over which they occurred. It would be possible to limit this period by the adoption of round-the-clock working, 24-hour working, although the cost of the work may be increased.
  2490
  The Wembley Borough Council regard the situation as an example of the unsatisfactory results which may be expected from the strict application by the Ministry of Transport of the principle of accepting the lowest tender. The council is placing the full facts before the Ministry and the Middlesex County Council and at the same time suggesting that in schemes of this nature, likely to cause acute congestion on main traffic routes, the principle of requiring the contractor to work day and night should be applied. I should add that Blackbird Hill is what is termed a "claimed" county road which is repaired by the borough council on behalf of the Middlesex County Council, and the cost of the scheme would be met to the extent of 75 per cent. Government grant.
  My right hon. Friend has already expressed the opinion that the principle that the lowest tender should be accepted is a sound one and I think all hon. Members will agree with him; but there are occasions where a little latitude should be allowed to local authorities to depart from this strict rule when circumstances warrant such a departure. This opinion is held by many local authorities in Middlesex and in the outer London area. Such is the case at Blackbird Hill. The present contractor is a good one and the work done there is satisfactory, but the cost, apparently, did not allow for the expeditious work required on these repairs. Consequently, traffic is delayed over a much longer period than should have been necessary. With the necessary latitude in tendering, many such works up and down the country might be speeded up. For instance, I noticed this week that repairs were being carried out on the Harrow Road at Kensal Rise, but the work on this job ceased at sundown.
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor appealed to motorists driving into London to leave their cars in outer London, in places like the Borough of Wembley, and to continue their journey to Central London by train. I am sure that the present Minister supports that proposal. The Wembley Borough Council considered such a proposal over a year ago and in February, 1955, sought the permission of the London Transport Executive to use part of the station yard on one side of die station at Wembley Park or part of the Executive's sports ground

  2491
  which is situated on the other side of the station.
  In twelve months no permission has been granted, but I understand that consultations are still going on and that consideration is still being given to the request. In the meantime, an offer of land over 400 yards from the Wembley Park Station has been made, but this is much too far away. This may be the day-to-day business of administration of the nationalised board, but I think that the Minister should be aware of the position.
  Those who motor from Wembley on the Harrow Road must feel that at two points where traffic lights are installed filtration of traffic should be allowed which would speed up the traffic, thus preventing some of the congestion that occurs at peak hours. At the Harlesden Library, Willesden, left-turn filtration is possible, and at the College Park Hotel by Scrubs Lane, a little further along, left-turn filtration should be allowed with the parallel line of traffic coming in the opposite direction from town. This filtration is possible, and, if put into effect, would undoubtedly speed up traffic at peak hours. Would the Minister look at this proposal and perhaps refer it to the local traffic advisory committee for the area?
  Finally—for I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to say something about East Lane traffic in his part of the constituency—may I ask the Minister for information on one other point? A constituent of mine has sent me a newspaper cutting which reports details of a monster machine that the Germans are using to extend the system of autobahnen. This machine works at such a pace that more than four miles of autobahn are completed by it every week. As the machine moves along, it is fed with materials by lorries that draw up alongside so that it stops, in fact, only to change drivers and when it is too dark or too wet to work.
  By comparison, the newspaper report says that a one-and-a-quarter mile bypass being built at Markyate, Hertfordshire, will take a year to build. Are the Germans really working 150 times quicker than we are in the construction of new roads?
  2492
  I offer these comments in no critical manner, because I appreciate the Minister's determination to solve the problem of our sadly overcrowded roads. I only hope that these suggestions might be helpful; and that the problems may be capable of solution.
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: I wish very briefly to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) has said on the two matters raised by him and, as he indicated, to make one or two comments on another matter.
  The Blackbird Hill repair is a very good example of how not to carry out a repair. It is taking much longer than need be through lack of organisation. I should like to reinforce what my right hon. and gallant Friend said about the need for allowing other than the lowest tender to be accepted in particular cases like this. The only alternative to that seems to be for all the local authorities concerned to have a sort of black list of tenderers whom they know do not carry out the work to their complete satisfaction.
  I think that that would be undesirable, and I therefore suggest some limitation in the way of preventing anything like this happening again. It is an appalling waste of time in traffic in peak hours in the morning and evening to be held up for a lengthy period—and even a quarter of an hour is a lengthy period—by traffic congestion, or for longer than is necessary, owing to the lack of this permission to accept other than the lowest tender.
  As to the car park at Wembley Park Station, I know that my right hon. Friend is very anxious to arrange as many car parks as possible in the outer suburbs, and even further out, in order to prevent in particular cars with only one occupant coming into town to increase the congestion in London and add to difficulties where parking is concerned as well. Wembley is about the first place nearest to the centre of London which would be possible for a large enough car park to be established, and that particular station is a good one, because it is served by a fast train service, which is often non-stop to Baker Street, to speed travellers on the last part of their journey.
  As to East Lane, which is the boundary between my hon. and gallant Friend's

  2493
  constituency and my own at that particular point, the difficulty there was that, when the factory of the General Electric Company closes in the evening, so many employees come out that there have been accidents through meeting the traffic which is inclined at times to exceed the speed limit along that particular road.
  I am grateful to the police, through my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and to the Home Office for having arranged for a car with a loudspeaker to be there, at any rate for a certain number of days a week, to try to persuade the employees coming out of the factory to emerge at a more reasonable pace and not rush into the road, which, I understand, is at present one of the causes of the difficulty there. By this means, I hope we shall be able to solve this problem and effect a reduction in the number of accidents, which we all desire to diminish as much as possible.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will consider all the points which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised and that these difficulties may be quickly overcome.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: I intervene for a moment to add a few words to what has been said by the two hon. Gentlemen who represent Wembley, as representing the neighbouring Division of Willesden, East, which impinges on Blackbird Hill.
  I would emphasise that this is by no means a party matter. Together with my constituents, I feel very strongly that something must be done to hurry on the process of repairing the road at Blackbird Hill, not only because of the delay experienced by motorists and other users of vehicles, but also because of the continual danger to pedestrians in that area. I do not want to prevent the Minister from making his statement, but I should like him to know of this confirmation in the neighbouring division of the same problem.
  10.24 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I am much obliged for the way in which hon. Members have raised certain matters affecting traffic in northern London. We always welcome helpful and constructive speeches
  2494
  of the kind we have heard tonight, and I also welcome the opportunity of explaining our policy with regard to these matters and of indicating what we are doing at the present time.
  The first point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing-Commander Bullus) was the question whether we were always wise to accept the lowest tender. In all these matters the Government and local authorities have to try to take the right line between economy and speed of construction. It is an accepted principle— and obviously a wise one—that where a job of work has to be done we ought to have a number of public tenders and, generally speaking, to accept the lowest tender.
  That does not mean that local authorities are under an obligation to accept the lowest tender if there is some good reason to the contrary. Where a specific sum is paid by my Department by way of grant, we require to be consulted, and to give our consent, before a tender other than the lowest is accepted. This does not mean to say that we should oblige a local authority always to accept the lowest tender, but that we should not be prepared to pay a grant, unless we were satisfied that the reasons for accepting a higher tender were good ones. On every occasion it is up to the local authority to give reasons why it wishes to pass over the lowest tender, and requests to do so are considered on their merits in the Ministry of Transport.
  I know that complaints have been made about the slowness of work of the special contractor concerned in the case referred to, but in fairness I ought to say that there has never been any complaint about the quality of the work done. Although I know that the local authority was doubtful whether this was a case where the lowest tender was the best, in view of the good record of the contractor we did not feel that we should be justified in passing over the lowest tender merely because it had been put in by him.
  My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the matter of car parks. It is the view of my right hon. Friend—as it was of his predecessor—that a great deal can be done to ease the general movement of traffic in London if car parks are provided in the vicinity of Underground

  2495
  stations on the periphery of London, where people living in the country can leave their cars for the day and take Underground transport in order to arrive at their places of business.
  The Minister took up this question with the London Transport Executive and the British Transport Commission. The Executive's policy is, firstly, to take immediate steps itself to extend existing car parks, or provide them where no heavy expenditure is involved and, secondly, not to construct or manage multi-storey garages where a large expenditure would be involved, but to facilitate and encourage their provision by outside agencies.
  The initial programme, which has already been undertaken by the Executive, provides for an increase from the present total capacity, of between 1.250 and 1,400 car places, to about 2,500 places. That is provided for in the present programme, but I must make it quite plain that that is not intended to be the limit of what will be done. The longer-term programme is to increase the total capacity to about 4,200 car spaces.
  The six priority allocations are Morden, Stanmore, Hounslow West, Redbridge, Oakwood and North Ealing. In the case of the Wembley site to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, it appears to the Executive unlikely that, even at heavy expense, suitable arrangements could be made. At the same time the matter is not yet at an end, and a meeting will take place shortly between representatives of the London Transport Executive and the Western Region to discuss the question whether it would be possible for the Western Region to make certain changes in the organisation of the goods yard there so that part of it might be available as a car park.
  The matter has also been raised whether a sports ground at present leased from the Executive to the London Transport (Metropolitan Railway) Athletic Association could be used for parking. The Athletic Association would not be prepared to agree to any permanent reduction of the area of the sports ground, particularly as it was provided as a war memorial to those who fell in the First World War. If, however, it were found possible to make use of it for car parking purposes without in any way
  2496
  detracting from its value for its main purpose, then the matter would be sympathetically examined.
  The third matter raised by my hon. and gallant Friend and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) was traffic lights. Conditions at the crossings he mentioned have been looked into. At the first, the police took a census, which showed that pedestrians use the crossing over Manor Park Road in very large numbers. It is always attractive to provide a filter so that traffic may move forward or to the left. At the same time, we have to realise that it does greatly hamper the movement of pedestrians who want to cross the road and we have to take road safety considerations carefully into account. For that reason, although we realise the attractions that a filter would have for vehicular traffic, our view is that, on the whole, in view of the danger and inconvenience to pedestrians, it would probably not be wise for that to be done. Willesden Borough Council has been consulted and agrees with this view.
  At the second junction, Scrubs Lane with Harrow Road, we are disposed to think that the suggestion that has been made would be advantageous. There is much less of a pedestrian problem there, and the police and our own divisional road engineer are disposed to favour the proposal. Willesden Borough Council, however, has said it thinks that an all-red period for pedestrians would be necessary. It is necessary, of course, for these matters to be sorted out between those concerned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South brought up the matter of the General Electric Company's factory in East Lane and the arrival of a large number of workers in the mornings and their departure in the evenings. This is a difficult problem, but it is not different in kind from problems which confront us, and which, I frankly admit, we have not yet solved, in every case where there are factories fronting on to through roads such as Western Avenue and the Great West Road. We do not feel that a pedestrian crossing would be a wise solution here. We feel it would probably result in a great increase in danger.
  My hon. Friend referred to accidents in East Lane. As a matter of interest, in the police return of accidents for 1954

  2497
  only one accident involving a pedestrian is mentioned. Apparently, a pedestrian stepped into a highway and caused a car to swerve into a motor cycle. As a result of these two movements, there was a slight injury to the motorist. I regret very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), the Chairman of the Pedestrians' Association, is not here to note this curious accident which was begun by a pedestrian, a motor cycle was then involved, and the casualty was a motorist.
  My hon. Friend referred to a German machine which is, apparently, building roads at a great rate in Germany. We do not believe that the Germans are in any way ahead of us in the use of machinery in road construction. The output of a Barber-Greene machine—we have a number of Barber-Greene machines in this country—is measured by the material which it can lay, which amounts to 100 tons a day. The actual length it can lay depends, of course, upon the depth of the material which is being laid.
  We are also familiar with the Stoddard-Pitt machine for laying concrete. It was used by a contractor who was congratulated by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for carrying out his work on
  2498
  the Great Cambridge road in a shorter time than that contracted for. While it is difficult to make a comparison, I do not think there is any need to be concerned about the efficiency of road construction in this country at the present time.
  I have tried to deal with the various points which have been raised by hon. Members, and I hope I have been able to show the House that we are deeply concerned about these traffic problems and that we have them well in mind and in hand.
  Mr. Russell: Has there not been an accident in East Lane outside the factory in the last few weeks? I understand that it is in that period that the anxiety has been caused.
  Mr. Molson: I was referring to the accidents which took place in the last period for which figures have been published. I will certainly make inquiries into the matter which my hon. Friend has raised.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Education Grants
  Education Grants
  Medical Services (Amalgamation)
  Medical Services (Amalgamation)
  ARAB REFUGEES
  ARAB REFUGEES
  MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  EUROPEAN REFUGEES (EDUCATION)
  EUROPEAN REFUGEES (EDUCATION)
CYPRUS
  Ethnarchy (Propaganda)
  Ethnarchy (Propaganda)
  Army Mail (Customs Examination)
  Army Mail (Customs Examination)
  Schools
  Schools
  Archbishop (Election)
  Archbishop (Election)
  Governor and Archbishop Makarios (Correspondence)
  Governor and Archbishop Makarios (Correspondence)
  Petrakis Yiallouris (Inquest)
  Petrakis Yiallouris (Inquest)
  Detainees (Families)
  Detainees (Families)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Banned Publication (Prosecution)
  Banned Publication (Prosecution)
  Soil Survey
  Soil Survey
  Roads (Development)
  Roads (Development)
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
MAURITIUS
  Education Facilities
  Education Facilities
  ADEN (UNITED NATIONAL FRONT)
  ADEN (UNITED NATIONAL FRONT)
  NIGERIA (KANO ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL)
  NIGERIA (KANO ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL)
MALAYA
  Rubber (Exports to China)
  Rubber (Exports to China)
  Village Land Titles
  Village Land Titles
  Hong Kong Doctors (Recruitment)
  Hong Kong Doctors (Recruitment)
MALTA
  Referendum
  Referendum
  Nationalist Party (Protest)
  Nationalist Party (Protest)
  Incidents
  Incidents
  Economic Aid
  Economic Aid
  NYASALAND (CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION)
  NYASALAND (CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION)
KENYA
  African Congress (Registration)
  African Congress (Registration)
  African Voting Rights
  African Voting Rights
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (SOCIETIES ORDINANCE)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (SOCIETIES ORDINANCE)
  GIBRALTAR (STATUS)
  GIBRALTAR (STATUS)
  SOLOMON ISLANDS (MURDER CONVICTION)
  SOLOMON ISLANDS (MURDER CONVICTION)
SHIPBUILDING
  Steel Supplies
  Steel Supplies
ROYAL NAVY
  Promotions
  Promotions
POST OFFICE
  Telegrams (Revenue)
  Telegrams (Revenue)
  Deliveries, Solihull
  Deliveries, Solihull
  Profits and Losses
  Profits and Losses
TELEVISION
  Television Act, 1954
  Television Act, 1954
  Sporting Events (Exclusive Rights)
  Sporting Events (Exclusive Rights)
  Suppressors
  Suppressors
ROADS
  Elephant and Castle (Traffic Congestion)
  Elephant and Castle (Traffic Congestion)
  Durham Road, Stockton-on-Tees (Speed Limit)
  Durham Road, Stockton-on-Tees (Speed Limit)
  Cavendish Bridge
  Cavendish Bridge
  Doncaster Mill Bridge
  Doncaster Mill Bridge
  Markyate By-pass
  Markyate By-pass
  Western Avenue (Dual Carriageways)
  Western Avenue (Dual Carriageways)
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Inner Ring Road, Birmingham
  Inner Ring Road, Birmingham
  Throckley—Newcastle Road (Widening)
  Throckley—Newcastle Road (Widening)
  Programme
  Programme
  Kerbside Reflectors
  Kerbside Reflectors
  East Retford By-pass
  East Retford By-pass
  Wilderspool Bridge, Warrington
  Wilderspool Bridge, Warrington
  Ashford By-pass
  Ashford By-pass
  The Strand (Widening Scheme)
  The Strand (Widening Scheme)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
SHIPPING
  Rescue Services (Helicopters)
  Rescue Services (Helicopters)
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Canals and Water Grid Scheme
  Canals and Water Grid Scheme
  Driving Tests, Lincoln
  Driving Tests, Lincoln
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Nuclear Test Explosions
  Nuclear Test Explosions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs (Packing Allowance)
  Eggs (Packing Allowance)
  Scrub Clearance Demonstration, Coggeshall (Cost)
  Scrub Clearance Demonstration, Coggeshall (Cost)
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
  Imperial Institute (Future)
  Imperial Institute (Future)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
  Child Population
  Child Population
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Insurance Funds
  National Insurance Funds
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Czechoslovakia (Talks)
  Czechoslovakia (Talks)
SCOTLAND
  Fire Fatalities, Forth
  Fire Fatalities, Forth
  Local Authority Members (Expenses)
  Local Authority Members (Expenses)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Generating Stations (Fly Ash Waste)
  Generating Stations (Fly Ash Waste)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

VISCOUNT CROOKSHANK
The Right Honourable Harry Frederick Comfort Crookshank, C.H., having been created Viscount Crook-shank, of Gainsborough in the County of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD GODBER
Sir Frederick Godber, Knight, having been created Baron Godber, of Mayfield in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD TRENCHARD
2.57 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, your Lordships will have learned with deep regret of the death of Lord Trenchard last Friday after a full and a long life in which he served the Crown with unvarying distinction, stamping every office which he held and every duty he assumed with the dynamic force of a most vivid personality.
During the whole of this turbulent century his career matured. It began in the 'nineties in the Army, when he saw service with the Royal Scots Fusiliers in India. It continued in Africa, where he served and was severely wounded in the South African war. In 1903 he was seconded to the West African Frontier Force, and there he was decorated for valour and revealed those qualities of organisation which later were to serve him and his country so well. Happily he lived to see the moving reception which has been given to Her Majesty the Queen in Nigeria, and he could reflect with just pride that it was there, fifty years ago, that he took the lead in promoting law
968
and order and justice, which are the foundations of self-government, of free institutions and of free peoples. During the many years over which he could look back he might find some mistakes in the handling of our Imperial responsibilities, but he was emphatic in his belief in the Commonwealth as a potent leaven in world society. I remember how his face would light up with the fire of enthusiam as he spoke with envy of the opportunities which challenge the young.
It was typical of his adventurous spirit that, while it was yet in its earliest infancy, he joined the Royal Flying Corps. Our country owes much—perhaps all—to that decision. While others did not see so clearly, he read the signs in the sky that air power would win supremacy in military strategy and that the nation best equipped for air attack would be the victor if another war should come. The air was then the uncharted element of the pioneer. Few were at home in it, and fewer still shared his conviction about the future. It needed a single-minded tenacity of purpose to drive through the apathy, ignorance and prejudice and to convince.
Sometimes the clear-cut distinction in his own mind between right and wrong led him to clashes of opinion with authority and with his colleagues; but his sincerity, his enthusiasm, his knowledge and, above all, his selflessness won the day—and won it in time. He was able to lay down the principles which should guide the development of air power. He was able to build a Royal Air Force, trained and efficient and permeated with the spirit of the offensive, and to see the Royal Air Force accepted by the sister Services, the Navy and the Army, with their roots so deep in British history, as an equal comrade in arms. And he was able to see the overwhelming contribution which that Force made to victory in Hitler's war. Modestly, he disclaimed that he was alone responsible for this; and that is true; but he inspired devotion in a host of young commanders and infected all ranks with his enthusiasm. Today the nation claims and acclaims him; but for the Royal Air Force, their first Air Marshal is their own hero.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will be able to speak with more intimate knowledge than I of the scope of Lord Trenchard's activities when he was Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis;

969
of the reform which led to the Hendon Police College; of the short-service recruiting scheme, for the introduction of which he was responsible; and of the development of scientific methods in the Police Force. For all those things, and much more, the public is in his debt. One of the most familiar sights of London which I recall, is Lord Trenchard sitting his horse with the elegant: case of the practised polo player and obviously wishing that Whitehall left him greater scope for the dash of earlier days.
So we come to the end of a life of great distinction, and Westminster Abbey is to be his last resting place. There he will take his place beside our famous dead, those great figures of history—men of deeds—in the chapel dedicated to the Royal Air Force. There his name will be for ever linked with the Arm which he did so much to create and with those dashing young adventurers who won their wings. That is fitting, for here, in Lord Tienchard's person, was one who acted on his own conviction that man is born to be a creator, and one who left for all who follow after him the message that life is Opportunity.
3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we on these, Benches desire to he wholeheartedly associated with the comprehensive and touching tribute which has been paid to the memory of the late Lord Trenchard by the Acting Leader of your Lordships' House. No greater tribute, perhaps, could be paid to him from your Lordships than the very fact that although it is not within the strict practice of this House to pay tribute on such an occasion, we are all desirous of doing it in respect of this outstanding piece of service by our departed colleague. The record put before your Lordships by the Acting Leader of the House is unique in the history of our country and our Commonwealth.
It was my privilege to meet the late Lord Trenchard for the first time in 1929. I liked what the noble Earl, Lord Home, said: that Lord Trenchard was sometimes inclined to state his opinions freely. At that time—that is, in 1929—the controversy over the relative positions of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force was sometimes quite warm. Lord Trenchard had a distinguished brother-in-law, the late Admiral Sir Roger (later Lord)
970
Keyes, and I remember hearing two conversations between them which were highly instructive and of great value to me afterwards in my work. Thereafter I followed his career with the greatest interest. Perhaps the finest thing for which we can remember him is his work for the officers and other ranks of the Royal Air Force, reflected in the affectionate memory in which he will always be held by that great Service. He has sometimes been referred to as the "Father of the Royal Air Force." In the last years of his membership of this House, on every occasion when our Lordships were considering the great strategic and tactical problems with which the Air Force was likely to be connected, he was foremost in his advocacy of forward, scientific, and efficient policies.
We desire to place upon record our great admiration, and indeed affection, for the late Lord Trenchard, and to express the hope that his devoted widow will have great consolation in the thoughts that we and so many thousands of people in this country express at the passing of her husband.
3.8 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords in a Chamber comprising some 850 members, there is inevitably, as in all associations of many men, a caucus of a few who may not be subjectively linked by any common interest, or even by similarity in character, but who, objectively, are linked by the great esteem, and often the affection, in which their colleagues hold them. In this category was quite outstandingly and unmistakably the noble and gallant Viscount, the loss of whom we mourn so sincerely to-day. Others more qualified than I have extolled—and rightly extolled—his high character, his great achievements, to which this country is indeed indebted, and his lovable personality. In an age of fierce competition he battled unceasingly, never for personal advancement or recognition, both of which came unsought, but always for the principles which he held on two foundations alone: integrity and patriotism. I speak from these Benches on behalf of all my colleagues who join wholeheartedly in the expressions of grief and of the sense of severe loss which we feel as a Chamber of Government of the Slate, as a community of colleagues in that Chamber, and as individuals from whom a deeply valued,

971
wise, high-minded and friendly elder statesman has been removed.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, it is now thirty-four years since, as a young Minister, I had the good fortune to cross the path of this great man. I remember my first interview with him very well. It was a time when the future of the Air Force was in great doubt; when there were many who criticised the existence of a third Service, and there were many more who doubted whether it could play a useful part in our National defence. When I saw Lord Trenchard, then Chief of Staff, my doubts were blown away in a few moments. I felt myself in the presence of a great man, conscious of his mission, determined with a singleness of purpose to carry it through. And it was my fortune for most of the next seven years to see him almost every day, and to work with him upon the great mission upon which he was engaged. I do not suppose that a Service Minister has often had the chance of working so long with his Chief of Staff.
From the very first day, I felt, as I say, that I was in the presence of a great man. He had just come back from the war, where as a pioneer he had created the first great unified Air Force in the world. When I first saw him he was engaged upon a task that was probably even more difficult: the task of re-creating an Air Force for peace time, when, it is to be remembered, the war-time Air Force had come to an end. It is very seldom that a great war leader is an equally great peace leader, but in this case Lord Trenchard can claim a record of great achievements both in war and peace. As a pioneer he created the war-time Air Force; as a prophet he created the peace-time Air Force, and forced upon the doubting world the conception of the importance of air power.
He was a very great man, but he was also a very good man, and throughout the whole of his career he was convinced that in a Service it was the spiritual things that counted much more than material forces. Morale, quality—those were the two objectives he always had in mind. He was determined that, whatever might be the size of our Air Force, it should at least, from the point of view of morale, hold pride of place in the whole of the world.
972
If any memorial or monument is needed for this great man, it is found in the morale that he created; and that having been created by him showed itself in the finest Air Force in the world. Thanks to it we were saved from the possibility of a very great calamity in the summer of 1940.
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Earl the Acting Leader of the House has made reference to what was, relatively, only a minor episode in Lord Trenchard's career but yet was not unimportant—his connection with the Metropolitan Police. It was in 1931, when what was called the National Government was formed, that I found myself, unexpectedly, back again at the Home Office, in a position which I had held previously during the war. I found there, pending in the Department, that by far the most urgent and serious matter then to be dealt with was the condition of the Metropolitan Police. Owing to causes which one need not go into today, it was a discontened force. Its efficiency had fallen; even its great reputation with the public was declining. The then Commissioner, after a long period of ill-health, was anxious to resign, but no successor could be found who was equal to the task.
Lord Trenchard had been approached by my predecessor but he had decided to leave the public service, and had definitely accepted an important post outside that service. None of the other names suggested seemed to carry sufficient weight to deal with what was undoubtedly a grave, and almost a dangerous, situation. In these circumstances, I thought that we must try to persuade Lord Trenchard to take on the task. King George V had always taken a great interest in the welfare of the Force and he knew Lord Trenchard, of course, intimately, and his value. I submitted to the King that if he could express the opinion that it was desirable in the public interest that Lord Trenchard should change his view and accept that post it might carry weight with him. His Majesty agreed wholeheartedly, and authorised me to speak to Lord Trenchard in that sense.
I therefore reopened the matter with him, and at once he sacrificed all the plans he had made. He released himself

973
from his other engagement, and accepted office in a new sphere which was of no particular personal interest to him. He did so solely on the ground that he felt it his duty to the State to do so. There at Scotland Yard he brought in fresh men and fresh methods. He brought about many changes which have been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Home, this afternoon. He had to face a great deal of opposition, from vested interests and others, but he felt that he was right. He was strongly supported by the Government, and he carried those measures through. He gave four years of his life to the service of that office, and when he left he left a contented and highly efficient Force, equipped with all modern facilities; a Force with all its needs met, and once more restored to the high position it had always previously held in the public esteem. I feel that your Lordships, in reviewing to-day the great services of Lord Trenchard, will not wish to omit from record this service of his, so characteristic of his own character and providing so striking an example of his own capacities.
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as an old friend and another former Secretary of State who owed much to Lord Trenchard, I should like to add a word or two to the tributes that have been so well paid. I think that one of the happiest memories I have of Lord Trenchard was seeing him, as an old man, in a group of young pilots, himself as keen and as enthusiastic as any of them. Of him it may be truly said, "Whom the Gods love die young." It has been said to-day, truly, that Lord Trenchard was in a very peculiar sense the creator of the Royal Air Force, but I feel that what is most remarkable is not only that he created that Force but that in nearly everything—indeed, I think everything—he did, often at high pressure and nearly all of it innovation, he was right. And what he did has stood the test of time: he built on the surest of foundations. Cranwell and Halton are his creations. It was always his wish and hope, and I think his certainty, that some day a Cranwell cadet would become Chief of Air Staff; and it was only a few weeks before he died that he said to me, with great delight, "Well, the new C.A.S. is a Cranwell cadet." My Lords, he lived to see that dream come true. The tributes that have
974
been paid to Lord Trenchard to-day will find an echo all through the Commonwealth. So long as there is an Air Force in any country in the Empire, Lord Trenchard's memory will he for ever green.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, other noble Lords with long and intimate experience of Lore Trenchard's achievements have paid eloquent tributes. I knew Lord Trenchard only since I came into your Lordships' House, some ten years ago, but owing to exceptional circumstances I was able to know and to appreciate, and indeed to love, the qualities which made hilt great. Force of character, courage, tenacity of purpose, a kind of concentrated common sense amounting to genius—all these, taken separately,s are great attributes; but combined, as they were in Lord Trenchard, they are tremendous. He was an awe-inspiring man in some ways but he was, equally, most approachable: patient to listen as well as eager to impart. His great qualities made him the ideal Father of the Royal Air Force. He seemed to combine and synthesise in his own person a grasp of new ideas and a contempt for precedent with a deep and true sense of tradition. To-Jay the thoughts of noble Lords will go out to Lady Trenehard, who was so true a partner in his life and from whom I am sure he derived a tremendous strength. I am sure, too, that she will be comforted in knowing that his qualities gave him an influence far wider than in one Service, although that was truly great. Speaking as a younger Member of your Lordships' House, I am proud to be able to-day to say that I owe him a great deal and shall ever hold his memory in deep and affectionate admiration.
3.24 p.m.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, as one of the very few now left who were associated with Lord Trenchard in the Air Ministry in the early days of the Royal Air Force, when Lord Trenchard was Chief of Air Staff and I was serving in the much humbler rôle of Under-Secretary of State for Air, I should like, very briefly but very sincerely, to add my word to the tributes that have been paid. After the eloquent and authoritative speeches which have been made, it is superfluous to refer further to the unique services which he

975
rendered to the defence, and indeed salvation, of this country. I should like only to say that, great as he was as a pioneer of air power, and great as he was as a Commissioner of Police, he was even greater as a man. He differed—he had to differ—from many, but he quarrelled with none. He fought his battles, often prolonged and sometimes intense, without rancour and without one trace of self-interest. He hated snobbery and pretentiousness more than any man I have ever known. He had many opponents, but he had no enemies. He was proved right over and over again, and he never boasted; he just went on with complete singleness of aim. Public speaking he found difficult, but he never hesitated to do it whenever he felt that his voice, either here in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, could add in any way to the cause he had so deeply at heart. He was as chivalrous as he was enduring, and as far-seeing as he was insistent. Once his friend, always his friend. I had the very great honour of his friendship for a whole generation's span, and I did not feel that I could let this memorable occasion pass without saying one word. His name is secure in our history; his memory remains in our hearts.

SAUDI GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES
3.27 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have thought of bringing before the United Nations the corrupting and subversive activities of King Saud and his agents as constituting a threat to peace.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to take the initiative in raising matters at issue between them and the Saudi Government in the Security Council. They hope that the Saudi Government may be brought to recognise the danger caused by these activities to stability and peace in the
976
area, including Saudi Arabia itself, without the necessity for acrimonious public debate.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply and I shall certainly not press him further on the matter to-day, as I understand the difficulties. I would merely reserve the right to return to the question should these objectionable activities persist.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask as a supplementary question? Could the noble Marquess tell us now whether or not there is complete agreement between the United States and ourselves with regard to these happenings in Saudi Arabia and neighbouring countries?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that point does not strictly arise from the Question, but of course it was one of the matters discussed at Washington. I do not think that the noble Viscount need have any apprehension as to differences of any substance between us in these matters.

TRADE WITH CHINA
3.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether the subject of a relaxation of the embargo on trade with China was discussed at the recent Washington Conference, and, if so, can they state the outcome of the discussion; (2) whether they are aware that at a time when it is more important than ever that the United Kingdom should expand her export markets some other countries are exporting to the China market items in respect of which British traders are denied licences; (3) whether the continuance of the embargo not only forces China to become increasingly dependent on the Soviet bloc but is acting as a spur to the industrial development of that bloc in competition with British traders; and whether they will take such steps as are necessary to bring this unsatisfactory state of affairs to an end.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, on the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the statement on the Washington talks made on February 13 by the Prime Minister in another place. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the noble Viscount to the Answer which I gave to him in reply to a similar Question on January 25. As to the third part of his Question, there may be something to be said for this argument, but this would not of itself justify the removal of the embargo which was imposed by the United Kingdom and other members of the Consultative Group following the United Nations resolution of May 18, 1951.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his answer. May I take it that the China embargo list is to be reviewed?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that if the noble Viscount studies the reference which I have given him to my right honourable friend's speech, he will see exactly what the position is in that respect.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for his answer and many British industrialists will be grateful to him, too. May I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the City Notes of The Times of February 13 which said:
"In some industrial quarters it is believed that 1956 may be the critical year for the placing of contracts in connection with China's second Five-Year Plan, which starts early next year"?
Would the noble Marquess bear that in mind as a reason for urgency in reviewing the China embargo list?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am not going to pretend that I have read the actual passage to which the
978
noble Viscount refers, but I can assure him that the omission shall be rectified and I will give it every consideration.

DISAPPEARANCE OF MR. BIALEK
3.30 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a man named Robert Bialek has been kidnapped from the British Sector of West Berlin, and, if so, what action has been taken at Moscow.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, Robert Bialek disappeared from a flat in the British Sector of Berlin on February 4, in circumstances which are at present obscure. The Acting British Commandant in Berlin wrote to the Soviet Commandant on February 8 informing him of Bialek's disappearance and asking him to make inquiries. No reply has yet beer, received. No other action has so far been taken, since the facts of the case have not yet been established.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, seeing that the Communists frequently indulge in these outrages and the sufferings of the victims just do not bear thinking about, would it be possible to indicate to Moscow that the release of this man would be welcome before an impending visit?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think we had better see what the exact facts are before we contemplate any further step that we could take.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, my fear is that we shall never hear anything further.

THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the present uncertainty and anxiety in the agricultural industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am glad that the debate to-day has excited the attention of a considerable number of your Lordships and that we are likely to have a good discussion. I notice that one name is missing from the list of speakers, namely, that of an old friend of us all, Lord Bledisloe, who has written to me to say how sorry he is that he cannot be here owing to the death of his wife, who was devoted to him. But, in the midst of his sorrow, the noble Viscount has written me a long and interesting letter containing his views of what ought to be done for agriculture at the present moment. I wish he had been here to put those views himself, because he is a lifelong friend and inspirer of the agricultural co-operative movement.
There is no doubt that the feeling of uncertainty and anxiety to which I refer in my Motion exists. It can be proved by the speeches of farmers from all over the country, assembled at the annual meetings of the National Farmers' Union, and by the unanimous resolutions for adequate recoupment—in themselves reflecting the farmers' present financial anxiety—and for a long-term policy (a point they have long pressed and which they press again on this occasion) to restore stability and confidence. Not only is that evidence of the existing feeling, but if one looks at the case of the organised workers in the industry, presented by their secretary, Mr. Collison, one finds they are equally anxious. In the agricultural Press from time to time there is considerable expression of feeling by farmers, and even by some landowners, that the remuneration of farmworkers in this country is still below what it ought to be; and the unions themselves are concerned lest there may be a retreat from the Government's policy under the Act of 1947 because of the circumstances facing the country to-day, thus presenting a further threat to the prospects and hopes of the organised workers in the industry.
As to farming finance, let there be no mistake about the cause of the farmers' discontent. At about this time last year the farmers were prepared at their 1955 Annual Conference to pass a resolution of no confidence in the Government, but were turned aside from that course upon which they were set at the first day's debate by the honeyed words of Mr. Butler, speaking at their dinner that day. In his statement to them last year Mr. Butler actually justified the use of subsidies in the agricultural industry and for agricultural products and development, although I thought at the time in careful and anxious language. However, he certainly made it clear that he believed in it as an alternative to any general policy of protection of the industry by tariff, such as is enjoyed by so many other industries in the country. Since then, however, the financial position and prospects of farmers have considerably worsened through steeply rising costs of labour and of machinery—and when I speak of costs of machinery in the farming industry, those of us who sometimes have to put our hands in our pockets know that it is not merely the purchase price of machinery that is so high, but also the cost of maintenance and repair of machinery on the farm. Fuel, overheads and fertilisers are all up and out of proportion to any change that there may have been—in the case of a few isolated commodities only—in the prices which farmers receive for their products.
All this was summarised for me the other day in a letter from a friend of mine to whom I wrote. He is the manager of a large farm of about 5,000 acres, and he has been a sort of farming mentor to me. I wrote to him early in January of this year and said: "Would you kindly be helpful to me once more and tell me what you think of the prospects in the farming industry at the present time?" He replied that in spite of all the Press campaign that had gone on about the wonderful harvest of 1955, and the huge sum of money that was to be saved to the farmers by the elimination of rabbits by myxomatosis, 1955 was the most anxious financial year for the farming industry that he had known for twenty years—and I am sure he meant what he said.
The farmer has to face an extraordinary inflationary situation with little, if

981
any, means of coping with it unless he gets better treatment in prices for his expanding product. Any other industry, in the present circumstances, could, within reasonable market limits at any rate, constantly increase its prices to the purchaser in relation to rising costs. Not so the farmer. He has to go along to the Price Review Committee and his general overall national income is from time to time, as often as not, reduced instead of increased. The representatives of the Farmers' Conference showed dissatisfaction—and I am using a comparatively mild term to describe the sort of feeling in the Conference—with their returns for milk, eggs, beef, cattle, sheep and pigs, in varying degree; and there was by no means complete satisfaction with regard to the present state in the grain section of the industry.
After the bad days of agricultural depression, bankruptcies and land out of cultivation between the wars, milk had become a stand-by for farmers in most areas, with stability secured by a long-term policy of the Milk Marketing Board—the Board set up under the legislation of 1931, introduced by the late Lord Addison, and amended by the main amending Act introduced by Mr. Walter Elliot. Since then, milk has always been a stand-by for farmers. Output in that industry has increased up to now, and with it liquid milk consumption, with a proved beneficial effect upon the health of the people and especially of the children.
I have been reading recently the agricultural supplement for the year 1956 of the Financial Times. I read a most interesting and fair article in that paper by Mr. J. L. Davies, the chief officer of the Milk Marketing Board. In the course of that article he says:
"Many dairy farmers are devoting more attention to livestock farming and it is wrong to assume supplies will expand rapidly. Feeding stuffs are expensive and the problem of suitable labour on dairy farms is very real…The seven day week is a great handicap in getting labour and it would be wrong to assume that these services will be continued unless the rewards in the industry generally are improved."
He is referring to the milk industry. He points firmly to the danger to the milk industry of the future in regard to the supply of suitable labour, and I am sure that the Minister himself will agree that the milk industry is being badly handi-
982
capped. That point is mentioned by Mr. Davies in his article, in which he says:
"When hardly any young men wish to train for the milk industry at the dairy colleges, then the position is very serious indeed."
My own experience, short as it is, proves to me how much more difficult it is now than it was five years ago to get men to work on a farm on the dairy side. They do not like giving up their seventh day, although there is a high rate of overtime paid for working on Sundays, and they do not like being tied on other days of the week compared with other sections of the industry. Mr. Davies also refers in that article to the continuing difficulty on many dairy farms where there is still a lack of piped water, and in some areas no electricity available off the grid. What does he conclude from that? He concludes that there is a great need for a bold approach to the problem of how the industry stands in this inflationary period, and for a national farming policy of the kind which led to the Agriculture Act, 1947, about which I shall have a word or two to say later.
Mr. Davies' warnings are pinpointed in my mind by a report I saw in the Farmer's Weekly of a speech by Mr. Towers, of Ulverston, at the National Farmers' Union Conference. He said that two points showed the red light with regard to milk production in his area—he carne from Lancashire. He said:
"In the north-western region of the Milk Marketing Beard 400 milk producers have gone out of production in the last twelve months."
That is 400 in one area. He also said that 40 per cent. of the animals inseminated in his area in the last year were inseminated from beef bulls, showing the general trend of feeling in this vastly important section of the agricultural industry. Nor is there by any means satisfaction in the beef, store and fatstock trade, although some parts of the country do better than others. During the last twelve months I have watched closely the fluctuations in the return to the free market in beef cattle. I have heard a great many expressions of dissatisfaction among farmers. They have been forced back on to a policy of market deficiency instead of being given some reasonable hope of getting a fair price for what they produce.
I would commend to the Minister, if he has not yet read his copy, the issue of the Farmers' Weekly for February 3—I know

983
Ministers are busy. Perhaps he will let me know whether he has already read it. The article is under the heading, "Is Beef Bad Business?" I am not in a position of experience myself to say whether it is or is not. I have heard expressions of dissatisfaction from other farmers anxious to get out of other sections of the industry. What the writer of the article says seems to show a conviction that farmers rarely, if ever, except in special seasons, get back the actual cost of keeping an animal for the beef market for two and a half to three years. I am judging that on the figures mentioned in that article. Nor do I see quite clearly, in the light of the figures we are getting, where the future of the beef business is going to be. Production in Britain for the last twelve months has gone up—I am speaking from memory—by a very large figure; I am not sure whether it is 10,000 tons or 100,000 tons. But we are also seeing, for the first time for some while, an increase in the importation of beef from the Argentine and certain Empire countries.
All these things should be borne in mind when we consider the farmers' reiterated demand for a long-term policy, and especially for targets to aim at, so that they may be given some idea of what is going to help not only the farmer but also the Government and the nation at large. Certainly the muddle in the beef business as a result of the short notice given of freedom to trade in beef, has not helped. I should like to repeat my tribute to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, the corporation set up to deal with the matter, for many of their achievements, although they have not been as successful in some fields as in others.
I do not know enough about sheep to make much comment upon them, but the Farmers' Conference seemed to have divided views. Certainly not all farmers are satisfied. Pigs have been referred to before in your Lordships' House and I must say a word about that subject. Here is a story which to me is almost unbelievable, and yet it is true. First, there was the request of the Government—and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, present because I think he knows about this request—that farmers should produce an additional million pigs. The noble Lord has not the responsibility now for answering questions on how those
984
pigs were dealt with. The farmers know that when the 1 million pigs were produced they could not find a proper market for them, and for a long period pigs had to be kept because they could not be taken into the bacon factories; and they had to be got rid of to the pork industry at prices which often meant either a loss to the farmer or an increase in the deficiency payment guarantees from the Government.
The Economist is a newspaper which I read with mixed feelings from time to time. I started reading it as a young man and I have read it regularly, but in these days it does not seem quite so impartial as I used to think it was when I was learning more about economics in my youth. I think it was the Economist which said the other day that it doubted whether there were more than three men in the whole of Europe who really understood the formula of the Pig Scheme for making guaranteed payments by way of market addition. It is about the most complicated thing I ever came across. Whilst I think I understand, on the whole, what is being sought after in the Ministry's formula, yet I can never be sure, when a pig goes off either to the Corporation or to market, quite apart from the grading of the pig, what I shall get for it, because the payments may differ by as much as 4d. per score to £1 per score from time to time on the weight of the pig. The most extraordinary stories come out about what is happening in individual cases. I expect my experience is the same as that of all pig farmers, that under the so-called "freedom from control" they have no idea what their average prices per pig will be.
One of the most illuminating things I have come across is a paragraph, which I hope the Minister has seen, in the "Editor's Diary" of the Farmer's Weekly of January 27. At the National Farmers' Union Conference, it was stated that a friend said to a farmer that his first-cross Landrace pigs were averaging about 11 score per pig of good bacon pigs. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, knows that a first-cross Landrace pig is likely to make a good bacon pig—
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): Not all of them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: —with reasonable feeding and care. It certainly would not be a cheap pig in process of development, coming from well-bred Landrace pigs. The market price for pigs of 11 score that week was 12s. per score. The man in question received an average of £6 10s. per pig for bacon weight pigs in the market. He received from the Government's guarantee scheme £11 10s. per pig. Therefore, he got about £18 for each of these pigs, which cost far more than that to produce. There was the cost of securing the sire, the sow, feeding the sow and then raising the pigs to that state. I will produce my castings in time and they will be as good as those of the noble Earl. There is no profit in it at £18. I hope that some farmers in the House to-day may be able to produce figures of the same kind.
The extraordinary thing is that the Government, in this day of inflation and rising costs of living, do not seem to be able to deal with the results of that situation. Those pigs were sold and went not as bacon pigs to the market but as cutters. They went to a butcher. He had paid 9d. per lb., live weight, that very week when I heard of three market occasions in Suffolk of pigs falling to 12s., or less, per score. I asked my wife what was the price of pork in the shops. She said: "It has been reduced this week from 4s. 2d. to 4s. per lb. for the best joints." Yet the butchers were buying the pigs at that time in these markets for 9d. per lb. live weight. As your Lordships know, there is practically no waste in a pig. Almost every part of it can be used, from the skin to every kind of offal, as well as the main joints. It is an iniquity that there should be such a scheme as that which is so confusing and unsatisfactory to farmers, putting that great difference between the two prices into the hands of the meat traders. Certainly the consumers never have that kind of reduction passed on to them.
I am interested in the noble Earl's reaction to the costs of raising these pigs. I shall be delighted to hear from him, in his reply, how the farmer can continue to raise good bacon-weight pigs, of an average of 11 score live weight, at a cost of less than £18, taking into account labour, food, the history of raising and everything else.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: If the noble Viscount is including pedigree prices, it is possible that his figures are correct.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that I should not include pedigree prices with my small number of pigs. It is true that I started with two or three pedigree gilts, half-sisters to a prizewinner, but they were not expensive; they were £60, or something of that kind. That is not much to pay for a good pedigree in-pig gilt. I shall be glad to hear what the noble Earl has to say in general about these prices.
The F.M.C. have struggled hard in a desperate situation which has been created because the Government gave far too short a notice of removal in the case of pig controls. The equalisation fund, created out of deductions from prices to farmers, which have operated unfairly, had to be nearly exhausted in efforts to attract back to the bacon factories pigs from the pork trade. The bacon factories, instead of being too full, as they were in the beginning, were panting for pigs, and this emergency fund had to be distributed in that way until exhausted. Then down went I he price to the farmer producer of pigs sent to the bacon market. What is the remedy in this case? The Government seem to he considering a tariff on Danish bacon, Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us about that to-day, and whether it is to be 10 or 15 per cent. from next October. If so, if that is to be the policy, will that be inflation? Every consumer and worker will think so. Mr. Butler and the Minister have both assured the farmers that they are entitled to assistance by subsidy. The farmer will suffer all the blame for any further measure of inflation caused by the imposition of a tariff upon such a feature of food production as bacon.
The position with wheat is yet another story. I have held the view all the way through—and I said so at the time—that the Government's decision not to adhere to the International Wheat Agreement has led to increasing anxiety in the farming industry. The experience in selling wheat in the last three years, at any rate, satisfies me that that is so. As regards the freedom of the miller now to buy how, where, and when he likes, I know that he is sometimes under pressure from

987
the Government to do this or that to oblige them. It is all to the good that so much more of the farmers' homegrown wheat should be taken from time to time. But the experience of the farmers, who must often, for financial and other reasons—such as climatic conditions—sell their wheat early, off the combines, is that when it gets to the miller it fetches anything from 17s. to a guinea per cwt.—good hybrid 46, the same as the French growers produce. They pay more for the French—as much as 6s., 7s., or 8s. according to the daily level of the British purchases. That wheat is actually subsidised by the French Government for export to this country, or, for that matter, to any other country. The French farmer is getting a higher price on average for his wheat than is the British grower, and it is allowed in under this so-called freedom, to injure the position of the British industry.
Consider the position which arises under the agreement in relation to what was said the other day by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when they came back to this country. What is the position of Canada in this matter? What sort of a market do we give Canada to-day, except the chance market of whatever the millers like to pay at a particular time? The injury to the Canadian and the Australian interests may be considerable, as a result of the movement away from their stability under the International Wheat Agreement. If so, it will react ultimately upon our export trade. I understood from the Prime Minister's report that there was a considerable gap between our imports from and our exports to Canada. I know for certain, from my long experience, that the Canadians are just waiting, watching and hoping for the time when the Government will sign the International Wheat Agreement. If my reading of the international Press is right, when this country drew out of the International Wheat Agreement it did so on the question of about 4d. to 4½d. a bushel. So far as I can gather, that was the difference in margin in the negotiations. You have thrown the whole of the grain trade into the old chaotic pre-war conditions, whereas you might have had stability, with good effects upon reciprocal trade.
From the wealth of information provided by his advisory service, can the
988
Minister tell us what is the considered view of the Government in regard to the financial position of the farmers? What is the position of the small farmer? As we know, two-thirds of our farms are of 100 acres or less; then there are many between 100 and 200 acres. A tenant farmer, speaking at the Conference in the last week of January, said that on a dairy farm of 137 acres in Rutland the return for himself for an 80 or 90-hour week is little more than what he pays the man he employs. Being an ex-officer, he was a good speaker; he was a lieutenant-colonel, retired. He may or may not have some other means. But what about the hundreds of farmers who have not? Can they meet the increasing and just demands of the workers, with all the other increasing and inflationary costs, on the decreasing guaranteed price? Can they to-day stand up to the new credit squeeze, let alone an increased bank rate? Whether or not the rate should be raised is the subject of daily paper controversy. There is talk of a special private meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the bank chairmen this week.
From the speech made by the Economic Secretary yesterday, in which he said that the position was getting so serious that any necessary step must be taken to stop the drain of gold, I should think that there is to be another squeeze: it all seems to fit in. Then there are the falls in the shares and stock market. Can the farmer stand up to them? I want the Government's view about this matter. Sir James Turner said that the reduction to farmers in the 1954 Price Review (that is the year before last) of £33 million in their guaranteed payment over all the industry was really a substantial contribution to the national income. Has any other industry made the same sort of contribution as was then imposed by the Price Review upon the farming industry?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Agreed, not imposed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, agreed in the usual way, by economic pressures which can be discussed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Certainly. It is not really a free market for the farmer, as you would have us think. The Government

989
have now promised a Special Review in regard to the recent wages increase award; but the Minister knows that there is already another application in being for a further increase, and the Agricultural Workers' Union are saying that now even a £7 a week minimum will probably not be sufficient. There is always a serious lag in the recoupment of the farmer of this and other increased costs. He often has this kind of cost increase nearly twelve months before it comes under review at the Annual Review. Is there going to be a lag now with regard to the next increase which undoubtedly is due to take place shortly?
The farmer gets Government assistance, but it seems to me that because he gets assistance automatically he is charged in the Press and in certain sections of trade comment with inefficiency. Whilst I agree that there is always room for improvement in any industry, I would point out that the farmer has been compelled in the last few years, through the Price Review, to make up millions of pounds of increased costs by what is termed absorption into increased efficiency. I doubt whether the figure that the farmer has saved to the country in that respect by absorption through increased efficiency is much less than £90 million to £100 million over the year. He has increased his output by 50 per cent. or more compared with pre-war, in spite of the drift of workers from the land. The 1955 returns show that yet another 30,000 male workers have died or left the land and could not be replaced in the last twelve months.
The Government, instead of boldly helping, have put up further handicaps, with the credit squeeze and such restrictions as will operate in rural areas under the new Housing Subsidies Bill. I want to emphasise to the Minister the grave difficulty which still exists in rural areas over the housing position, and how difficult it is for people in some rural areas who have old-fashioned cottages rented from either their owner-occupier farmer or their owner-landlord. There is a great need for bringing these cottages up to date to meet the demands of the workers; but whilst it is inherent in the original Act, it seems monstrous that in some parts of the country local authorities refuse to put the grants into operation. Therefore, hundreds of pounds have to be
990
spent per house in order to try and bring it up to date.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: May I interrupt for one moment? As I understand it, most of the councils which are refusing to operate this Act are largely those which are controlled by people of the same persuasion as the noble Viscount opposite.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That may be so in the noble Earl's experience, but I speak from my own experience; I am controlled by a completely Tory interest, and I cannot get a grant in aid of my cottage expenditure; they simply will not adopt the Act. So I beg the noble Earl not to try to "ride off" the issue like that, because that is not the position.
With all this, I would point out that at the present moment, our gold and dollar reserves are lower by £270 million than in 1951. None of the Government measures to deal with the situation seems to have any full or lasting effect. In many ways, I feel sorry for Ministers faced with the grave problems that face them at the present. time. Nobody who has been in office wants to see individual men—men whom one likes—faced with these serious problems. But one cannot help being critical, looking at the way some of the decisions of the Government have helped to produce the situation. The good fortune that they had in improved international terms of trade in 1952–53 does not seem to have been used to full advantage in building up reserves. Sir Oliver Franks, speaking the other day as chairman of Lloyds Bank, said there had been many opportunities to build up the reserves. Doubtless this was in the mind of Sir James Turner also, when he said that his industry was not going to be selected for special attack in these matters. The cost of living is going up continuously. In his report as a bank chairman Lord Aldenham says that since the last adjustment in January, 1952, it has gone up by 20 per cent. while it is up by only about 2 per cent. in two other important countries and by 7 or 8 per cent. in others.
This extraordinary position has arisen in the last three or four years. Food prices have increased to such an extent that food which a short while ago cost £1 to-day costs 25s. Has the farmer been getting anything like that percentage in-

991
crease in prices? I should like some expression of view from the Government on this aspect, because the money is being expended elsewhere. The Financial Times general table of results of 2,838 industrial companies shows that in the full year 1955 the distribution of ordinary dividends to shareholders increased by 21 per cent.—over one-fifth—compared with 1954. Money is being made in this country, but are the farmers getting that same percentage increase? The farmers have a right to know whether there is any comparison between such increased prosperity and profit and what they have got, for they have had something to do with that prosperity. They have spent £600 million a year in promoting British industry, by having it supply them with their requirements. To-day, agriculture as a whole stands at the cross-roads in a highly inflationary situation which, as an industry, it is not in a position to meet; for agriculture has no real and final control over agricultural prices. When this Review comes we should know that Her Majesty's Government really intend to do something to help farmers. There is agitation in the Press, and elsewhere, and plenty of advice from the other side.
One comes back to the economists who say that taxation is far too high. The economists tell Mr. MacMillan that he should not allow special interests such as farmers (quoted as an industry) to stand in the way of a determined and early drive to reduce taxation, taxation on income, surtax and profits tax; but they admit that the only long-term way is to see that production is increased. They support the credit squeeze on the basis that it will reduce full employment to some extent, though how that will raise production I do not know.
In its attack on the Prime Minister recently, the Daily Telegraph, in a leading article, said:
"the remaining food subsidies, agricultural subsidies and rent control still require reform "—
by which, of course, is meant reduction. It said, finally and most urgently:
"Promises to cut Government expenditure still have to he redeemed. This is an outline for action—not a recipe for popularity."
The end of the article brought back vivid memories to my mind, for, attacking the Prime Minister, they called for "an axe not a safety razor blade" in carrying out the operation. Farming is threatened
992
with the same kind of "axe" as it had in 1920 and 1921, which brought complete ruin upon it.
I apologise to your Lordships for being so long, but I feel deeply about this subject. Yesterday I received a letter from a correspondent, who had seen that I was to speak, giving a broad interpretation of a new farming policy in Germany whereby, though their inflationary position is not so bad as ours, they are to give special attention and priority to increasing agricultural output as a factor to protect them from inflation. That is the Bundestag Act of September, 1955. Yugoslavia is suffering very badly through inflation, her imports being more than twice as much as her exports. She, too, is to redeem the position by increasing agricultural output. Sir James Turner says that since 1938 the increase in agricultural production alone has saved the country £400 million a year in imported food. I believe that his figures are accurate: I have had them checked in other quarters. He says that, with proper support, a much larger sum than that could be saved. If the Government are willing to do it, that is more likely to be a successful long-term policy. The Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board advocates such a policy.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, is not here to repeat what he said to me the other day—that the 1947 Act is an enabling Act. I agree that it does not say that the Government must do this or that; but the Government represented opposite made a pledge to the farming electorate that they would stick to that Act. What counts here is the spirit in which they administer the Act. I do not like that spirit. Though one does not see much of this in general Press, I saw in The Times that Sir James Turner's Council had been asking for a Special Review. Though Her Majesty's Government are to grant a Special Review on this occasion they say: "We must warn you that Special Reviews of this kind will, in future, have to be altered to conform to changing circumstances" whatever they may be. There is always the threat or the warning and, as a result, the Government are helping to destroy confidence in a great industry which could be of immense help in the salvation of our country from its present inflationary difficulties. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

FEDERATION OF MALAYA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to make a statement on Malaya which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary. Your Lordships, I think, know of the background to the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Conference which ended last week. The story is set out in its Report. A copy is already in the Library of the House and it will shortly be printed and laid before Parliament as a White Paper. I want now simply to comment briefly upon its main features.
The Report refers to the desire of the Malayan delegation that full self-government and independence within the Commonwealth should be proclaimed by August, 1957, if possible. The Report agreed that a Constitution so providing should be introduced at the earliest possible date consistent with the importance of the task before the Constitutional Commission, and that every effort would be made by Her Majesty's Government and the Federation Government to achieve this by the time proposed.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to make provision for the interim period, and the recommendations in the Report are principally concerned with this. In accordance with previously accepted procedure, the recommendations of the Conference about the composition and terms of reference of the proposed Constitutional Commission are being submitted separately. The immediate changes proposed include the transfer to Malayan Ministers of responsibility for finance and development, and for internal defence and security, and for the withdrawal of the British advisers to the rulers.
As regards defence, so long as the emergency continues it is recommended that the forces required for its prosecution should remain under the operational command of the Director of Operations and be used to aid the civil authorities in giving effect to the directions of an Emergency Operations Council, of which the Malayan Minister for Internal Defence and Security will be chairman and the Director of Operations a member. It is also proposed that there should be a per-
994
manent Federation Armed Forces Council, with functions in relation to the local armed forces broadly corresponding to those of the Army and Air Councils in the United Kingdom. A fully self-governing Federation of Malaya will be responsible for external defence, and it was agreed that at that stage there should be an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Federation making provision for defence requirements and mutual, assistance in defence matters, including provision affording to Her Majesty's Government both the right to maintain in the Federation the forces necessary for the fulfilment of Commonwealth and international obligations and also the facilities needed in the Federation for the support of these forces, which would include the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. For their part Her Majesty's Government will undertake to assist the Government of the Federation in the external defence of its territory. It is proposed that the details should be studied by a working party to be set up as soon as possible under the chairmanship of the Commissioner General for the United Kingdom in South East Asia, in which the Australian and New Zealand Governments would be invited to participate through Observers.
The Report also contains important recommendations on financial and economic matters, relating both to the interim period and to that after attainmen of full self-government, including a reaffirmation of the Federation Government's desire to encourage overseas investment to look to Malaya with every assurance of fair and considerate treatment. It makes a number of proposals relating to the position of the public service, including recommendations for the establishment of a Public Service Commission, a Judicial Service Commission and a Police Service Commission, and outlines the provision of a compensation scheme for those whose position and prospects may be affected by the consequences of the constitutional changes. This will, I am sure, go far to remove any feeling of insecurity in the Service, in which British officers, like other men and women from Britain, in agriculture, mining and other spheres, have over the years contributed so much in skill and devoted service to the building up of the Federation to the point at which it can now look forward confidently

995
to full self-government within the Commonwealth.
All the recommendations in the Report are subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government and of Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States.
Her Majesty's Government were very glad to welcome the Chief Minister, representatives of the Rulers and Members of the Government. We had a very friendly Conference in which all concerned approached the task in a spirit of recognition of our common interest. The friendship and confidence which existed is a good assurance for a future happy partnership with the Federation of Malaya, which we look forward to seeing take, in due course, its place as a fully self-governing member of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, I am afraid that that statement is a little long and a little complicated. It will be much easier to follow when the White Paper is printed, but I thought that your Lordships would like to have that statement made at the same time as it was made in another place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl, the Acting Leader of the House, for the courtesy which he has shown in making this statement. I think that a good deal of what it contains has already appeared in the Press. I hope that everyone in the country will welcome it, as I do myself, in principle. I do not think that this important matter has been very widely debated in Parliament, although an agreement seems to have been settled. When the White Paper is issued, we shall study it carefully, and I am sure that your Lordships will wish to have a debate upon it.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps we can consult together, and make suitable arrangements for a debate.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, to express our welcome for the statement which the noble Earl has just made. We shall look forward to a debate upon it in your Lordships' House. One matter about which I am particularly glad is that there is to be a compensation scheme for people whose positions and prospects are
996
affected. In that respect, things have sometimes gone wrong in the past. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the relevant passage in the statement will convey great comfort to people who may be affected.

THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
4.27 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who is himself a keen farmer, for the great interest which he always takes in this subject and also for the great vigour and clarity with which he always expresses himself when he speaks about it. The noble Viscount's Motion refers to
"the present uncertainty and anxiety in the agricultural industry,"
and it is certainly a good thing that we should discuss it. I did not, however, see any signs either of uncertainty or of anxiety at the Aberdeen Angus bull sales in Perth last week. The champion bull was sold for 16,000 guineas, which I hope may at least have temporarily relieved the seller from his own uncertainty and anxiety. Another bull went for 17,000 guineas, and even the most humble purchasers like myself, who belong to the very bottom class in bull-buyers, could hardly get anything we wanted at much less than 300 guineas—and that for a type of animal for which I was paying only seventy or eighty guineas a few years ago. Yesterday, at the shorthorn sales in Perth, prices were so high that I could not afford to buy even one bull, and I might just as well have come here and attended your Lordships' House. Voting on the Copyright Bill, which I believe your Lordships were considering yesterday, might have been at least as useful as not buying a bull.
When the Government restored the free market in meat two years ago they may have been acting wisely or they may have been making a mistake; but they certainly succeeded in putting a high premium on the best breeds of British beef cattle. The Ministry of Food, when it was the sole buyer of meat in this country, could only pay the farmer according to weight, without making the same allowance for quality that the butcher

997
who has to satisfy his customers is obliged to give in a free market. And now all concerned are trying to increase their beef herds as rapidly as possible at the same time. Perhaps that is particularly so in Highland areas, where we are helped very greatly indeed by the Government's hill cattle subsidy, and by other measures of special assistance. Indeed, our hill farming policy at the moment is so successful that a good many farmers cannot get enough tuberculin-tested cows of the right breed to stock their hill farms.
The high prices now prevailing for breeding cattle of the best-known varieties are not due merely to inflation, although, as the noble Viscount pointed out, inflation is having a marked effect on our agricultural economy as a whole. They are due mainly to the farmers' belief that people who are fully employed and who are earning high wages will always be willing to pay a good price for the best meat. I think that the real cause for anxiety in agriculture at the present moment is not the fear that farming will be let down by any Government or by any political Party, but the possibility that there may be a slump in world trade, which might put an end to full employment and so reduce the buying power of the public. If that were to happen, then it might well become economically and politically impossible for any Government to guarantee farm prices at anything like their present level.
It must be a slightly uncomfortable thought for all of us that there is now enough wheat stored up in Canada and the United States to feed the whole population of the world for several years, which cannot be sold at economic prices. A free market for meat in Great Britain may or may not be a good thing—personally, I think it is a very good thing—but a free world market for wheat at the present moment would be the greatest imaginable disaster to Western civilisation. It would not only ruin all farmers in Britain and North America, but it would hit the industrial workers of both Continents with equal severity. Great Britain is the largest importer of wheat in the world, and any British Government might have a very difficult decision to make if asked to co-operate in any plan for stabilising international prices.
998
Two years ago, the present Government refused to adhere to the International Wheat Agreement. I am not criticising them for doing that, because I think it possible that Canada and America may have been asking a bit too much, and we have to think of the terms of trade, which are extremely important to this country—the relation between what we buy and what we sell. But it is better for us that the terms of trade should be a little more adverse than we should like them to be, than that we should take the risk of a world trade depression which would at the same time deprive our foreign customers of the ability to buy our exports, our own Government of the ability to guarantee British farm prices, and our own population of the ability to buy British food. I do net agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in saying that the Government ought to have signed the International Wheat Agreement at that time, because I think it might have been that the price was too high and we had to think of those gold and dollar reserves, about which the noble Viscount also spoke. I think it would be a good thing if we could have a new agreement at a price which would be fair to us. It certainly would be a great advantage to us if we could assist the Canadians, Americans and Australians to dispose of these vast surpluses of wheat without undue loss to themselves.
In my view, we are often inclined to consider agricultural policies rather too much in terms of the actual amount of money which we are supposed to be giving to the farmers. It is seldom realised that until about two years ago the annual prices for wheat, barley and oats. which were agreed in February of each year, were usually less than the world prices for these cereal products. I remember that at one time the Ministry of Food were buying imported barley from Mesopotamia at 140s. a quarter when the guaranteed price to the British farmer was 90s. a quarter. If 90s. was a fair price, as I think it was, that is all right; but it is wrong to say that the farmer is being subsidised in these circumstances—he is not. It would be more true to say that the farmer was subsidising the consumer. If we do not object to paying the farmer a lower price at a time when world prices are high, then equally we ought not to

999
object to paying a fair price when world prices are low. The figures representing the total amount which we are paying on guaranteed agriculture prices are a fairly small sum in relation to the great fluctuations which are taking place from time to time in the terms of trade, and it is to our advantage that at least we should try to keep home farm prices stable, at a cost which is very much less than we may have to pay at any moment for a change in the terms of trade in our disfavour.
If we like to compare these figures with the assistance given to other industries, we find that many trades, like the motor car trade, have protective duties amounting to 33⅓ per cent. That is a much greater ratio of assistance than the farmer is getting in relation to the amount of food which he is producing. I think we have been restoring British farming fairly cheaply, from the taxpayer's point of view, and I think the farming industry has made pretty good use of the money that has been spent on it. Our gross output has increased since 1938 by 50 per cent., and our output per man by nearly as much. If we compare that with some of the other more important industries, like the building trade, in which I am told £4,000 million has been spent, we find that the output per man is only half of what it was before the war, compared with the 50 per cent. increase in agriculture. If we take coal mining, on which we have spent I do not know how much money in capital investment and to cover losses, we are still not getting as big an output as we had before the war. But in agriculture, which on the whole has received very modest subventions from the country, we have this huge output of increasing value to our general economy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has brought forward a number of criticisms of the Government, with some of which I do not agree but to all of which I have listened with much pleasure. I am going to deny myself the still further pleasure of entering into any controversy with the noble Viscount, not because it happens to be Ash Wednesday, which is the beginning of the season of self-denial, but because it happens to be February 15, when the Annual Price Review is just beginning. I feel that in the middle of February it is a good thing that all these agricultural grievances and complaints should be expressed without
1000
undue discouragement from anybody else. I do not think that any of the criticisms of the noble Viscount really affected the broad general agreement, in principle, which subsists between all political Parties on our agricultural policy. The purpose of that policy is to save foreign currency by producing more food, possibly with fewer men but with higher wages for those who are employed. And if there have to be fewer men as a result of higher wages and mechanisation, that does not mean that there will not be more men employed in other occupations, some of which we hope may be in the country. No industry can ever be free from uncertainty and anxiety—indeed, it would be a bad thing if any industry were entirely free from either. But I certainly could not say that the policy of the present Government has increased anxiety in agriculture beyond what is warranted by the general economic difficulties of our country at the present time.
4.42 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is not without a certain feeling of temerity that I rise to crave your Lordships' indulgence on the first occasion of giving voice to my feelings in your Lordships' House. I do so because I am particularly interested in agriculture—indeed, it is my livelihood. I confess that I do not feel quite the deepening depression that, according to the text of this Motion, I should feel; but, by the same token, I believe that the future agricultural prosperity does lie in that rather hackneyed word "efficiency." I feel sure also that no Government in the near future can, will or would even dare to allow agriculture to wilt. And that for five good reasons.
First, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough said, it saves us £400 million a year on our balance of payments. Secondly, for strategic reasons we cannot afford to allow our agriculture to slump. We have found in the last two wars what a vitally important weapon a virile agriculture is; and for that reason alone we cannot let it fall into the doldrums that it was in during the 'thirties. Thirdly, there are 730,000 people involved in the work of the soil, and we cannot disregard their interests. Fourthly, a huge and immense empire of industry has grown up around agriculture: all the machinery manufacturers, the canned foodstuffs firms and the deep-freeze firms

1001
are fundamentally dependent for their own prosperity on a prosperous agriculture. Fifthly, agriculture is the premier industry of this island: it occupies the largest area of any industry in this country, and therefore must command a certain degree of importance.
As your Lordships know, for various reasons Britain cannot produce her food as cheaply as other countries can; and if you agree with what are, to my mind, the important points that I have mentioned which must safeguard agriculture, then you must also agree that agriculture must be protected. It is on the form of protection that I should like, with your Lordships' indulgence, to say a few words. There are virtually two ways in an open market in which we can protect our agriculture. One is by tariff, and the other is by lowering the cost of British food to the consumer, by means of subsidies and grants. If we put on tariffs, such as many other industries enjoy, what will be the result? The cost of imported food will rise to be on a level with the British home-produced food; but that will immediately put up the cost of living and so curtail demand. It was for that reason that these agricultural subsidies were produced. These subsidies have become valuable political ammunition for urban politicians.
What is the case? These subsidies keep the cost of British food to the consumer at an artificially low leve1—there is no question about that. The alternative, as I say, is to impose tariffs that will keep imported food on a plane with home-produced food. These subsidies keep the price of food to the British consumer low, and the British consumer is therefore receiving a subsidised product. That surely must come under the heading of a consumer subsidy. I am not suggesting for a moment that agriculture is not protected, because it is; but I believe that these so-called agricultural subsidies are, in their essence, consumer subsidies. I feel that there is in the Press an extremely unpleasant "smear" campaign against the farmer. Because the farmer is the recipient of a cheque for the subsidy, it is said that he is living on the charity of other people's taxes and is fostering that historic but now rather rusty old piece of furniture, the feather bed. These "smear" campaigns are as unjustified in agriculture as they are in any other industry that is pro-
1002
tected by tariffs. Nevertheless, the aim and object must be gradually to increase the efficiency of our farms so that British food can be produced at a low cost, while at the same time ensuring a fair and just return to the farmer and to the farm worker for the labour and risk involved. As the Government have said, I believe that they will study these subsidies to see whether any improvements can be made.
I should like to make three suggestions for the consideration of your Lordships: they will probably be quite useless, in which case they will no doubt find their way into the wastepaper basket, but I think they are worth mentioning. First, to start and run a farm takes a great deal of capital, which no young person possesses to-day. Again, the buildings on our farms are in need of tremendous capital expenditure. Just think, my Lords, that they were erected by our forefathers 200 and 300 years ago! We talk of efficiency, but look at the advances made in agriculture during the last 300 or 400 years, in electricity, machinery and fuel. All those things—and even cows and pigs—have changed their shape in the last 200 years. No one would think of using a plough or an implement that was 300 years old, and I feel there is great scope for improving the efficiency of our farms by spending money on capital buildings. Therefore, I wonder whether there is not a possibility of the Government paying, say, a grant of 2 per cent. of the 5 or 5½ per cent. required as interest on capital as a grant for the erection or modernisation of buildings. Alternatively, would they pay a direct lump sum for the erection or modernisation of buildings, rather as they do for the farm cottage? I want to make it quite clear that I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to foot a higher subsidy bill. On the other hand, I suggest that perhaps there is an area into which some of the money spent on subsidies and grants could be poured.
My second suggestion concerns grants for laying on water. It is generally agreed, I think, that the best way to get the most out of one's land is by the practice of ley farming. The greatest drawback to ley farming is the astronomical cost of laying on water. At the moment, a grant of 25 per cent. is paid for this work. I would humbly submit that that is rather a waste of money, because the grant is not large enough to make any difference to the

1003
person who must have water. If the cost is going to be £100, the fact that he will receive £25 is really not sufficient incentive. Despite the 25 per cent. grant, the cost will still be heavy. If it were possible, I should like to see that grant increased to 50 per cent.—again not as an extra, but as a switch-round. I feel that in both the instances that I have given the effects of the subsidies would be felt over a long period. They would be felt over the next five, ten, twenty or fifty years, and by increasing the efficiency of one's buildings, and by getting bigger crops from more fertile land, we should be reducing cost of production for each unit of food produced—and that, surely, ought to be our aim.
My third suggestion relates to our dear friend the pig. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, touched upon this matter, and I wanted to emphasise a point that was not his main point. In the last eighteen months or two years there have been two minor slumps in pigs. I am not unduly concerned with that, because anybody who keeps pigs knows the old adage that "Pigs are either muck or money"; and anyone who goes into pig farming presumably does so with that saying in mind. A person said to me the other day. "Pigs are either copper or gold, but if you stay in them and do not go in and out, you will get the silver." There is a lot of truth in that view. The important point is that while during these two minor slumps the return to the farmers has substantially dropped, the cost to the consumer has remained materially the same. There seems to me to be tremendous scope for improvement there, because, however one can argue the merits of the agricultural subsidies, whether they were designed to subsidise the farmer or consumer, the person they were never intended to subsidise is the middle man. Yet in these cases it is he who has benefited.
In passing, I should like to say a word or two about electricity. One hears a great deal about rural electrification, and it is an excellent thing. But I would urge that, when rural areas have been electrified, they should be subsequently properly maintained. The electricity boards have wonderful ways of selling one equipment and then cutting off the power. That may be all right in a home, where one can produce candles and get
1004
on, but for a farmer who has chickens and incubators dependent upon a constant supply of heat, the effect of power cuts can be devastating. There is great scope for the use of electricity in farms now, and more so in the future; but it must be of a reliable nature. I liken the electricity boards to a "quack" treating a sick man: he will prescribe plenty of medicine; he will sell the patient plenty of expensive tablets; but he will also cut off the supply of drink, without which the patient cannot exist. I have been the victim of this particular game on more occasions than one. The most recent was last week, when I lost 30 per cent. of my birds owing to a power cut. If I had been operating a hatchery with 2,000 eggs in incubators, the loss would not have been 30 per cent. but 100 per cent. And when one rings up the electricity board and says, "Look what you have done"—as I did in a very irate fashion—all they say is: "We are sorry, but we are not responsible." I suggest that the boards should be responsible.
I apologise for having detained your Lordships for far too long. What I have said constitutes only my own most humble and modest impressions of the agricultural industry as it is at the moment. I am afraid that I have not punctuated what I have said with the customary facts, figures and statistics that one so often hears. Perhaps that is because I was once told by an eminent Parliamentarian (and here I am standing on rather tender ground) that some politicians used statistics rather like a drunken man uses a lamp post—more for support than illumination.
4.57 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, my first pleasant opening is to congratulate the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat upon his maiden speech. He certainly punctuated it with much useful practical information, and it was obvious from the manner of his approach to the subject that he is very interested in agriculture. I know that we shall be pleased to hear from him on any occasion on which he wishes to address your Lordships. There is another point of congratulation, and it is this. I notice that the noble Earl comes from Suffolk, and anyone who comes from the Eastern Counties is, so far as I am concerned, particularly welcome when we are dealing with agriculture. There is another point which may

1005
interest only the noble Earl, which is that yesterday I sent a card from this House to Staunton Harold.
EARL FERRERS: Thank you very much.
LORD WISE: There is little more I can say than what the noble Viscount said in opening. I think we should all agree that it was a speech full of information and facts, and was a telling indictment of the policy of the Government as we find it at the present time. Those of us who are concerned with farming can all deal with practical examples of troubles through which we have been passing for the many years during which we have been connected with the industry. I think that the present is a time when we can quietly discuss the position of the industry as it is. It has been said that now, just before a new February Review of Prices, is not an appropriate time to talk about agriculture in your Lordships House; but I do not hold that opinion. I think it may be useful for the Government to hear not only what we on these Benches have to say but also the practical experience of those Members of your Lordships' House sitting on the other Benches, who, I am glad to see, will take part in this discussion before it concludes.
I want to deal quietly with one or two points because I am deeply interested in the industry. I have had practical experience of quite fifty years in dealing with farming matters and other matters appertaining to the land. I am perturbed at the volume of opinion which is being expressed in the country about the present conditions under which farming is carried out. One has only to look at the agricultural papers, to read the reports of the National Farmers' Union meetings, or even to look at the local papers to see what the farming correspondents are thinking about the position. It is obvious that the industry is, at the present time, sick. Either there is a cure or there is likely to be a further decline. I want the Government, who 'have the means within their power to look at the conditions, to consider the unrest and anxiety which now prevail, and to come forward, as they can come forward if they have a mind to, with a long-term policy which will, I hope, help to bring about a revival of agriculture.
1006
I cannot follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in his suggestion that, owing to the high prices of pedigree bulls at recent sales, it must be welt, with the agricultural industry and the production of livestock. I am pleased if somebody did make a high price for his bulls and I am further pleased to think that one of those bulls was the means of bringing dollars to this country, for I believe that that particular bull was exported. I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that there is a certain prosperity in hill farming, because I well remember, in days not so long ago when I was in another place, that we were particularly keen upon setting the hill farmers in a better position than that in which we found them at that particular time. We took steps in that direction. I want to suggest to the Government—this suggestion has come up before and has been refuted on the other side—that they should fully implement Part T of the Agriculture Act. The conception of the Government is different from the conception we had, when we brought that Act into operation, of what was meant by "guaranteed prices" and "assured markets." The noble Viscount who opened this discussion gave us figures which clearly pointed out that, at the present time, we have no guarantee of prices except low prices, minimum prices. Until the farming industry can be more certain not only of it; marketing, with an assurance of a sure market, but also of a fair price based on the costs of production, there will be a certain amount of chaos and disquiet within the industry.
The Government have it within their power to come forward with a policy based on a long term. But if there are not the means within the Government to tackle the problem and tie up all the loose ends of agriculture, I suggest that some sort of commission be brought into operation to tender advice to the Government or have some power to act, so that, when something goes wrong in one direction or another, the attention of the Government can be drawn to it and it can be put right at once and within our present means, without waiting until we have a world slump.
The Prime Minister a few days ago, I believe in a letter to a candidate in one of the by-elections, assured the electors that the Government proposed to bring happiness and efficiency into the industry. There is no end of happiness at present

1007
in the industry on the production side, in the use of something, in the tending of something, in seeing our crops grow and mature. But there is something else which makes for happiness, and that is a full reward for our efforts. If we can get that, then agriculture, with its prominence in our economic life and its desire to serve the community, will play its part. The Prime Minister referred to efficiency. This should be said: that the time has come when anything which is detrimental to the industry, in the nature of the slur of inefficiency, should be combated. There is no record in our economic and trade history of the last few years which can hold a candle to the efficiency and progress of the agricultural industry. We have done remarkably well and, within our means, have delivered what we were asked to. The time has come when we can decide that the agricultural industry is as efficient as any of our other basic industries.
I want to make two or three suggestions to the Government on matters which may help the recovery of agriculture to prosperity. First and foremost is the fixing of our prices according to our productive costs. It is a tragedy, as so many of us know, to produce things and then to have to sell them in the open market at a loss, at a price lower than the cost of production. I think some measure of control should be exercised in regard to the costs under which we have to work. Such things as feedingstuffs, artificial manures, machinery and repairs have a habit of mounting against us, and, so far as we agriculturists are concerned, we cannot in any way stop it. The only people who can stop it are the Government, and I think it would be a tremendous boon to agriculture if some kind of control were imposed. I am absolutely unrepentant so far as control is concerned. I am quite convinced that a fair measure of control would be of benefit to the industry. We in agriculture were never more prosperous than at the time when we were controlled.
I suggest that there should be a review of marketing conditions, which are not entirely satisfactory, whether in the open market or through the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. Whether our cereals are efficiently and properly marketed is a moot point. I suggest to the Government that some better control should he under-
1008
taken in regard to imports, which at many times of the year come into this country for one purpose or another, to the detriment of the home producer of agricultural foods. If I may tread on ground which is present to all our minds at the moment, I wish to encourage some sort of better system of credit facilities. I am sure that the present credit squeeze is having a detrimental effect upon the agricultural industry—at least as much as upon every other industry. If we can reduce the cost not only of products which we have to buy, but also of the finance which we have to use, then I think we shall be conferring some benefit and helping the industry. My Lords, I wish to say no more at this time. I hope that others of your Lordships will have some contribution to make which will enable the Government to consider the present position, and that when we again come to discuss agriculture in your Lordships' House we shall not have quite such a gloomy picture to portray.
5.14 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, it is my pleasure to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on his excellent maiden speech. I am certain that your Lordships will look forward to hearing the noble Earl speak on many occasions in the future. I also feel that many noble Lords on the other side of the House and the Party that they represent must feel most sympathetic towards the ideas which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put forward. Should those ideas find sympathy with the noble Earl who will be replying, there will be a great deal of support up and down the country for any such measures that can be put forward.
I feel that the lack of confidence to which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, referred in his far-reaching and excellent survey in opening this debate, must in some ways be due to the gradual breakdown of the landlord and tenant system. Whatever else has happened since 1939, it is certain that for a potential tenant to-day there are fewer farms to rent, and that there are fewer estates with as many farms as they had in 1939 for a tenant farmer. The landlord and tenant system is a policy of farming which may be right or wrong, but, whatever else it may be, it produces

1009
farms at a price which the average young person wishing to farm in these expensive times of inflation can afford. As a result of policy, whether right or wrong, since 1939, and as a result of tragic deaths in the Second World War, estates have been broken up. The result is that more and more farms have been bought up, either by the sitting tenant at a low price or by outside buyers at a high price if there was vacant possession. Every time that happens it means that some young man who may be at an agricultural college or who has acquired agricultural learning as a farmer's son is not able to take over a farm of his own.
We have heard the price that has been suggested for capital to start a farm. A fairly modest farm of, say, 100 acres could take certainly £16,000, and it would not be a very ambitious type of farm to manage and run. That has been much publicised in the Farmer and Stockbreeder, where they are experimenting to see how little capital can be used. It is suggested that £3 for an average acre would not be too exorbitant a rent for a landlord to ask. It is shown in the latest figures that somewhere in the region of 30s. is in fact the average country rent. Whether that includes such places as those spoken of by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I cannot ascertain but 30s. as an average rent in the country must surely be very low indeed. No one would complain at having to pay 5 per cent. for money that they wish to borrow, and if to-day agricultural land on an average (excluding, if I may, Lord Dundee's part of the world), is worth something like £80 an acre, I feel that tenants, who still form the majority of farmers in this country, must be receiving a substantial subsidy out of the very land in which they have security of tenure.
If there is this lack of confidence to which the noble Viscount has referred—and there is no doubt that up and down the country at N.F.U. meetings one can hear of it—would such people as the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, be willing either to sell their farms or to let them to such a young farmer as I have suggested? I do net believe that the words of the noble Viscount will really have shaken the confidence that exists in regard to the waiting lists of young farmers wishing to take up farms. I do not by any means believe
1010
that the lists will shorten when we return home after this most valuable debate in your Lordships' House. Rather I think that the confidence is such that there will he more and more people wishing to take over farms as tenants, even though the rent can amount—and often does—to £5 an acre, because of the overwhelming confidence that young men have in the land and in the future of farming, for one reason alone: the enormous technical advances, which any person can understand, can master and can, after a little practice, apply to the land, can bring back a solid return in a foreseeable time, say, within only a year of taking over a holding.
But can any young man obtain a holding which he can afford in these times? I hope that on a future occasion the noble Earl may be able to put forward any ideas Her Majesty's Government may have on the anomaly whereby there is complete security of tenure in a farm, even though the tenant may not be, as under the Act, liable for acts of grossly bad husbandry. Nevertheless, because of that security of tenure, many young men are unable to go into the industry. Credit is one of the major worries which has been somewhat soft pedalled by farmers. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that if same of the money from these subsidies could be channelled into the land rather than into the farmer's pocket or bank book there would be much more sympathy from the taxpayer and from industry in this country, for that would be a direct subsidy put into the land, and could not possibly be lost by Her Majesty's Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If large scale water schemes were carried out, then the value of the land would automatically go up. No doubt the noble Earl will be able to think of methods whereby the Chancellor of the Exchequer could recoup such subsidies as he would pay out. I believe the same suggestion would hold in regard to electricity power extensions, and so on.
We have heard teat the landlord is due for a break. I am sure he is ready for it and I believe he deserves one at this time. We have heard about the efficiency of agricultural machinery and the men employed in agriculture. The landlord has suffered exactly the same increases in cost but has been unable to obtain such remarkable increases in output, because it takes almost as long to put up

1011
a barn in 1956 as it took in 1939. It takes equally long to lay on water, to lay roads and do other work. Such operations have not been speeded up to any great degree. If it is possible, it seems fair to divert some of these subsidy payments to the land, through the landlord. There would be no worry over repayment because tenants are willing to pay upwards of 8 per cent. and more. That is not an unreasonable figure for the country to pay for improvements which will gain such greater efficiency and increased output.
When the taxpayer feels that agriculture is taking too much of the resources which he pays to the Chancellor, it would be well for him to remember the enormous amount of goods which the agricultural industry is buying from the industrial side of our country. It seems hard to believe that in the period 1952–56 it should have been necessary to buy, for example, an extra 120,000 milking machines. One would have thought that anybody milking cows in 1952 must have had milking machines to make anything of a livelihood. Nevertheless, despite the apparent lack of confidence which the agricultural industry is feeling, that number of machines was bought in that period. Much money has been spent on capital equipment. Since 1952 12,000 combines have been bought. I do not believe any farmer would lay out an average of £1,000 and more if he had no confidence in the industry. Furthermore, with wages at £6 13s. a week farmers will have to keep on buying machinery in order to maintain output at a price at which the housewife will buy.
Finally, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider means whereby the home-produced article can be "put over" and advertised to the housewife. In a free market it is the housewife who produces the long-term policy; if she buys the produce, then agriculture will be prosperous. If she does not like and buy the produce, then agriculture cannot prosper. There are new advertising media, such as television and films. Little has yet been done to advertise the quality of our agricultural products or to make comparisons with imported foods. Even the Milk Marketing Board finds it necessary to spend £650,000 in advertising such an everyday commodity as milk. Could not some of the subsidy be used,
1012
possibly by the National Farmers' Union or other bodies connected with agriculture, to bring before the public the benefits of supporting agriculture by selecting and buying home-produced products, so long as those are competitive and comparable with imported products—as usually they are?
5.28 p.m.
LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, my sole qualification for taking part in this debate is that I am neither a landowner nor a farmer. I am, however, a citizen, a taxpayer, and a consumer. In the speeches that have just been delivered the ordinary citizen has been given far too little prominence. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, certainly touched upon the importance of enlightening the ordinary consumer as to the need for an agricultural industry. I believe that only 4 per cent. of our working population is engaged in agriculture. Though that is a very small percentage it does not mean that it is an unimportant mass of people; but it does mean that comparatively few really know the needs of this industry. There have been references in this debate to questions being asked about why farmers should be subsidised. We have already heard of the importance of this industry as a buffer for our gold and dollar reserve and as a means of lessening the impact of inflation. We have also heard of the importance of the agricultural community as purchasers of manufactured goods and machinery. There are two aspects that 1, as an ordinary member of the population, wish to stress.
We may ask what loss there would be to Great Britain, to the community, if agriculture, like so many other great industries in the past, were to go to the wall. Other industries have declined and have been superseded by new ones. I believe that there are several cogent answers. First, there are some agricultural products that can be brought to the consumer in far better condition if they are produced at home. Certainly many housewives think that home-grown vegetables and home-produced meat are better than the imported commodities. On the other hand, there are many workers who ask why they should pay more for produce from our own farms when subsidised wheat and meat are obtainable from abroad. We know—it is a matter which has been stressed in

1013
this debate—that workers are leaving the agricultural industry and flocking into the towns. It may well be that they earn very much more money in the towns. But we have to give some reason why we should keep them on the land and why we should subsidise them. I have already mentioned the question of quality.
One very important consideration, to my mind, is that agriculture is a vital factor in defence. We are spending fantastic sums on armaments; on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and on producing very expensive defensive and offensive weapons. Yet many of us remember the threat of starvation with which we were faced during the First World War. We know of the straits through which we had to pass during the Second World War, and how, because of the tremendous efforts which were made on the farms, we managed to survive. I also remember, as will many other noble Lords, that between the wars agriculture declined. It was heartbreaking to see farms derelict and land waterlogged. All this had to be made good during the war. Does it not make much more sense to keep the farming industry prosperous and up to concert pitch now, in order to be prepared for the next world war—if there is to be a next world war; and the mere fact that we are prepared to spend such a large amount of the money raised by taxation on armaments means that we are envisaging such a possibility. It stands to reason, therefore, I submit, that whatever we can do to make farming prosperous—even if it means subsidising it or, by one means or another, encouraging farmers to expand—will be well worth while.
We have heard about the difficulties of young men starting new farms. I know something of that from my own experience. My son had to find a tremendous amount of money in order to start his own farm. I think that the State should do a great deal to encourage young and enthusiastic men and women to go into farming, instead of into other industries. We should benefit in the long run—in fact, we should benefit immediately. We should not follow a course which may result in the stamping out of the great enthusiasm which certainly exists in this connection. On these grounds, I should like to support my noble friend and leader and the other noble Lords who have spoken in the House to-day advocate-
1014
ing greater consideration for the farmers—both employers and employed—and the provision of capital at a very much lower rate than that at which it is provided at present.
5.34 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I have only a comparatively small point to raise in relation to the general scope of this debate. I should begin, I think, by declaring an interest in dairy farming. I am, however, disinterested in what I am going to say, to the extent that I have never had any difficulty in disposing of my milk, thanks to the good offices of the Milk Marketing Board, and to the district in which I live. But I do believe that the more milk that can be sold and produced in this country as milk, or cream, the better it will be for both the farmer and the consumer. I think that that view will be generally acceptable to the House, and it brings me to the rather unseasonable topic on which I wish to speak—namely, the lack of any real cream in much of the ice cream which is sold in this country.
What ice creams do contain I have no means of knowing; some say it is whale fat, and others (whom I disbelieve) say that mashed potatoes sometimes enter into their composition. Both such ingredients are, I admit, products of agriculture or fisheries; and both are no doubt perfectly wholesome. I am saying nothing against iced whale fat or iced potatoes, but I am objecting to the use of the word "cream" to describe them. I have been told that a distinction is observed between "ice cream" and "cream ices," but such trade niceties are too subtle to protect the public, who naturally suppose that "cream" means cream. The Food Standards Ice Cream Order, 1953, has gone some way towards giving protection by specifying that ice cream shall contain 5 per cent. of fat; but it does not specify butter fat. If butter fat were to be specified, since such fat is the basis of cream, and since 7½ per cent. milk solids other than fat are also specified, I should feel that some kind of piecemeal approximation to accuracy had been achieved. But I would suggest that such ices should be described as "rich milk ices," since they would contain only 2 per cent. of butter fat above the bare legal minimum for milk. They would, in fact, contain only the same percentage of butter fat as may be expected from the milk of the Channel Island breeds.

1015
I should like to see the word "cream" reserved for ices containing a proportion of actual cream that has not been, as it were, taken apart and reassembled in somewhat unbalanced proportions. It is also perhaps not irrelevant to mention that in many of the United States of America it has been found perfectly practicable to forbid the use of the word "cream" unless cream is actually present. I realise that the noble Earl who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government is not likely at this moment, in the middle of a Price Review, to announce changes of policy on more important issues, but I hope he may be able to agree to such a comparatively minor proposal as I have made for the protection both of the dairy farmer and of the public.
5.38 p.m.
LORD HUNGARTON: My Lords, may I add my thanks to all those that have already been expressed to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. It has been said, and it seems to be thought, by some noble Lords who have spoken that everything is all right with agriculture. I wish that it were. If I thought so I should not be speaking here to-day. But I am bound to agree with my noble friend who brought this topic to our notice again. The few remarks which I have to make may sound a little critical, but whatever I have to say I want noble Lords to realise that my criticism is intended to be helpful criticism; and I hope that it will be regarded in that way.
What has caused anxiety and uncertainty in the agricultural industry at the moment? The first thing I have found, in going about amongst my farming friends, is that they agree with me in saying that there is no Government policy. The Government, they declare, have not a policy. I am bound to agree. And they go a step further. We who live on the land all know to-day that agriculture is in the hands of the Government. It does not matter what Government come to power, agriculture is in the hands of that Government. The farmers realise this. They also realise that at the present time the Government are facing a great deal of difficulty so far as the economy of the country is concerned, and they are wondering just how far agriculture will come under the axe.
1016
We realise that the subsidies paid to agriculture are large, amounting to some £300 million a year, but we find that our net returns come to about the same figure, and we know that if there is a cut we shall be very much worse off. So far as I am concerned—and I wish all farmers could look at it in the same way—my country comes first. The cost of living has to be brought more into line by some means, and someone is going to suffer in the very near future. That is one of the reasons why we farmers are concerned about the future. We are also concerned about the subsidised food, such as French wheat, that is brought into this country. French farmers are getting something like £37 a ton for wheat that is sold in this country at £24 or £25 a ton. That is done by the Government buying maize abroad, selling it to our farmers at a profit and using the profit to subsidise corn coming into this country to be sold. Farmers do not mind competing on level terms with farmers in any part of the world, but when it comes to competing with Governments—well, we just cannot do it. That is why I say that we are in the hands of any Government and why we should have Government protection from anything of that kind.
At the present moment, unfortunately, there is no planning in agriculture. Because there is no planning by the Government, our industry has been drifting like a rudderless ship and farmers are afraid that we shall end up on the rocks. Agriculture is too important to be treated in that way. As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, agricultural production amounts to £1,200 million a year. That is a great deal of money, a much larger sum than is produced by any other industry, and it is worth looking after. I should like to pay tribute to our farmers and farm workers for the grand work they have done, not only during the war but since. We have not heard a whimper from them. I am very proud of our farmers and farm workers, particularly the farm workers. I am glad that they have had a little rise. They are looking forward to another—though whether we can afford to give it to them will depend largely on what happens during the next few weeks.
I think the Government can be justly blamed for the present high level of the

1017
cost of living—I say that without fear or favour. It is one thing for which I blame this Government. If they had kept the cost of living at what it was four years ago, we should not be in the trouble we are in at the present time. But we are in trouble and we have to get out of it. This so-called freedom, which we have had for several years, has completely failed: let us be honest with one another about that. From the top to the bottom, from the highest to the lowest, it has failed. The man in big business has been begged and cajoled by the Government to cut down his dividends; yet they are still rising. When we go right down the line until we come to the workers, they say they want a little of these dividends, and it is difficult to blame them. I say that there ought to have been some means by which these good men could have been told exactly "where to get off." I beg the Government to give agriculture a lead by adopting a long-term policy. To me that is all-important. I come back to that point, and I shall continue to come back to it, until this Government, or some other, adopts such a policy and puts it on record. Once we have a long-term policy, it will be up to the farmers to put their house in order. And, goodness knows! there is a good deal of spring cleaning to be done in the farmers' house.
Then I come to marketing. There is a great deal of money wasted in the marketing of our produce, and that is one thing that must be looked into very closely. There is too big a gap between the producer and the consumer: that is where we have to look for saving a great deal. This can be done by better organisation. We think that we have made ourselves so efficient that we cannot improve our methods. Believe me, my Lords, we have not started to get down to real efficiency. In my opinion the 1947 Agriculture Act has been administered very badly. When this Act was introduced it was never envisaged that we should be marketing our produce in the present antiquated fashion—I use the word "antiquated," but it is really worse than that; that is a polite word for it. Go to any market you like and farmers can be seen selling their produce as they did fifty years ago. We have not advanced at all, with the exception of milk and
1018
wool marketing, which are looked after much better. We must put that matter right.
I am certain that if our industry had confidence put into it by the Government, then farmers would have the courage to reorganise production and marketing much more efficiently than at present. It would give us the incentive to go on. But the Government and the farmers have to work together. It is no good for the Government to say, "Well, there you are, my boys; you have your freedom. Go on." The Government and the farmers have to go hand in hand, and it is imperative for the wellbeing of this country that that should be done. And the sooner the better. Marketing boards should be set up for everything we produce, and farmers should make greater use of their own co-operative societies. I was the chairman of a co-operative society for seventeen years and watched its turnover grow from half a million pounds to £5 million a year. I am very proud of that. I think that farmers could do a great deal by co-operation, but they are slow to take things up even in their own interests. However, I commend that idea to them. Incidentally, these agricultural co-operative societies have an annual turnover of £100 million, a considerable amount of business. By making better use of the means I have mentioned, I firmly believe that farmers can produce food more cheaply. This will be a great help in lowering the cost of living, which is the main thing needed to help this country out of its present difficult position.
5.49 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for introducing this Motion and giving us this opportunity of having a debate on agriculture, an industry of such great importance to us all. At the outset I must declare an interest, as I am a farmer farming in Scotland. Much ground has already been ably covered by other noble Lords and I do not want to repeat anything that has already been said, except to stress the great achievement in agriculture in raising production by over 50 per cent. since prewar days. This is a very remarkable achievement, one which is saving the country no less than £400 million worth of food imports annually. Owing to this,

1019
I think one can truthfully say that the agricultural industry is proving itself worthy of the nation's support by rowing a very fine race, in which everyone in the industry is pulling his or her weight.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has referred to the uncertainty and anxiety in the industry. I do not want to take this matter too lightly, but I should like to point out that there has been uncertainty and anxiety in the agricultural industry ever since man first began to till the land, because the farmer cannot control the weather. Also, there is bound to be uncertainty and anxiety at this moment, when a Price Review is pending. For the farmer it is rather like being in the dentist's waiting room; he wonders in what sort of condition he is going to leave the dentist's chair, and he turns over in his mind the possibility of coming out without any teeth and feeling very sore, or with no change, or possibly coming out with his teeth filled with gold.
I have two points I wish to raise, and at the outset I must apologise because they are both rather technical points affecting grass. Grass, which is a protein-rich food, is universally accepted as being one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest, form of animal food, and, as such, it is now our most important crop. Our grass fields are to-day like gold in the nation's economy, because no longer can we afford to go on importing large quantities of feedingstuffs from abroad. Unfortunately, at a time when the phrase "balance of payments" haunts us daily, we find that during the last two years a further £55 million has had to be spent on importing feedingstuffs for animals. I maintain that much of this could have been supplied at home, at far less cost, by the use of grass. To achieve this it is essential that farmers should not only grow better grass, but should make better use of the grass they grow. A 10 per cent. saving on imported feeding-stuffs would be the equivalent of saving one million tons of imports a year. The easiest way the farmer has of raising production at lower cost, and at the same time improving the condition of the soil—which is an important factor in farming to-day—is by making better use of grass and by conserving grass.
The cheapest method of conserving grass is by making silage, which, with
1020
our present climatic conditions, is a far better form of grass conservation than by making hay. Also, it is a far better form of grassland husbandry. Many farmers have found that silage has cut their feeding-stuffs bill considerably. I believe the farmer who has gained most by silage is the dairy farmer, who has found that it is possible for a dairy cow to produce 800 gallons of milk a year on grass and grass silage alone. It is of paramount importance that we should make more silage in this country. When I was on an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Denmark, I found that silage was being made on 50 per cent. of the farms in that country. Unfortunately, there is no official figure available for this country, but I believe it would be somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. In 1950 1¾ million tons of silage were made in the United Kingdom, and in 1954 2½ million tons were made. So there has been some increase, although the increase is not nearly fast enough.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the 2½ million tons entirely grass silage?
LORD FORBES: It is entirely grass. What is wanted is a marked expansion in the making of silage, which would undoubtedly lead to a reduction in the cost of production of many of our more important livestock products. The Government White Paper on agriculture in March, 1955, drew our attention to the fact that more effective use of grass and grass products is one of the best ways in which the farmer can help the nation's economy. This being so, surely it is up to Her Majesty's Government to financially encourage farmers to make more silage. I am not for one moment suggesting that subsidies should be increased, but as the Minister has expressed the desire to channel as much Treasury help as possible into constructive and deserving production grants, surely here is a case for re-allotting some of the existing grants. I should like to suggest one grant which in my own mind I am quite certain would give a far better return than some of the existing grants. I would suggest that a grant should be given towards the construction of roofed silage pits, as is given in Northern Ireland, where I gather the grant is yielding a high return to both farmer and country. If a farmer already has a silage pit, then I suggest that this grant should

1021
be made available towards roofing that silage pit, as our agricultural authorities have proved quite conclusively that silage made without a roof, especially in a wet season, can lose a considerable amount of its feeding value.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention, quite briefly, to a scheme called "The National Scheme for Comprehensive Certification of Herbage Seeds." This scheme was introduced by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in 1955. Briefly, the object of the scheme is to make available to the farmer certified home-produced grass and clover seeds of high quality and from approved strains. Farmers cannot expect the best results, and the country cannot expect the highest production, unless the best possible seed is sown. Agricultural authorities in Scandinavia are insistent that the energy they have expended on building up the strain quality of their seeds has resulted in an overall increased agricultural production of 20 per cent. They also maintain that a high percentage of this increase comes from better grass and clover seeds. The success of this scheme depends entirely upon the amount of support it receives, and I would ask the Minister to consider how much support he can give to this worthy scheme which, if successful, will be of great benefit, not only to the farmer but also to the country. The least that can be done is to give the fullest possible publicity to the scheme.
Finally, the Government can encourage the farmer; but only the farmer, by his sweat, his toil and, sometimes, his tears, can produce the food. As Swift so rightly said:
"Whoever makes two ears of corn or two blades of grass, to grow where only one grew before, deserves better of mankind and does more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together."
6.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we have had a long and exceedingly well-informed debate, such as we are accustomed to have on the subject of agriculture. I shall detain your Lordships for only a little longer to draw the attention of the Government to two matters which I think are particularly urgent. I should like to ask the Government to give serious consideration to the drift from the land and, looking further ahead, as the Government should, to the disastrous
1022
effect that this drift will have on production unless it can be stopped in time. The facts are indisputable. In the past year 20,000 men have left the industry. These are net seasonal workers, but regular whole-time farm workers. The average lost in the last six years has been about 14,000 workers a year, and this shows that the number leaving the industry annually is not only not steady, much less not declining, but is actually increasing. It is surprising that, up to the present time, this annual drain of manpower has not had any appreciable effect upon output; but it undoubtedly will, if it is allowed to go on. It. is certainly one of the factors causing the farmers generally acute anxiety—that acute anxiety about the future to which my noble friend and Leader has properly drawn your Lordships' attention in his Motion, and for which he has adduced so much evidence, based upon his great practical farming experience.
There are two things that have sustained output, in spite of the dwindling labour force, but I am afraid that they will not continue to operate much longer. One is mechanisation. As we are all aware, in the last fifteen years there has been a technical revolution in agriculture. British farming is now the most highly mechanised in Europe. I do not say, of course, that we cannot go a little further in this direction, as several noble Lords have suggested, but we must be extremely careful not to waste money on too much mechanical equipment. The other thing that has saved labour recently is the changing pattern of farming since the war. Climatic conditions and our soil have made us a pastoral country, and it is only in war time that we plough up our grass and plant other crops. We are now gradually reverting to our pre-war pattern. In the last two years there has been a substantial decline in arable acreage and an increase in permanent grass. But this change from arable to grass—and I am sure the noble Earl opposite will agree—cannot go much further without upsetting the balance of production. We are therefore very near the limit beyond Which labour cannot be saved without a serious fall in output. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that if we go on losing manpower at the current rate of from 10,000 to 20,000 workers every year, there will be within a few years an acute labour shortage and a steep drop

1023
in the present far from satisfactory level of food production.
I need hardly stress the economic consequences of such a setback, because your Lordships are fully aware of them. It would undoubtedly aggravate our balance of payments difficulties. But no less unfortunate—and this, I think, is sometimes overlooked—would be the social effect of a further drain of population from the countryside. For the last twenty years we have been trying to disperse the population of our great cities to the best of our ability. Nobody wants our villages to become more and more deserted and derelict, and our towns more and more crowded with people coming in from the neighbouring countryside; but that is the way we are heading to-day. I should like to ask the noble Earl opposite whether he agrees that, if the drift from the land continues at its present pace, these economic and social consequences will inevitably follow. If he does agree—and I do not think he can do otherwise—perhaps he will tell us what the industry and the Government should do to stop it.
I think everyone realises the broad principle of the solution to this problem. The only way to save our countryside is to make life in the villages as attractive to young people, when they are planning their future, as life in the towns. I do not believe this can be done without an entirely new approach, both by the Government and by the farming community. Let us look at some of the things that militate against life in the country. It is a disturbing fact that the difference between average industrial and average agricultural earnings—although, of course, agriculture has now become just as skilled an occupation as work in factories or on the railways—is not only substantial but actually growing. It now amounts to £3 7s. 0d. a week, whereas in 1953, less than three years ago, it was only £2 13s. 5d. a week. Moreover, the working week in industry is shorter. A differential of this magnitude, if allowed to persist, will ruin agriculture. Agricultural wages must be made comparable to the wages of urban industry. Of course, we cannot expect the taxpayer to carry the whole of the extra cost that this would involve, but if farmers had the guarantee (which they have not at present) of a stable and satisfactory
1024
labour force, they would no doubt make a special effort to contribute to the cost by improving their own efficiency. Better wages are, therefore, closely linked to better farming.
In the meantime, further attention should be given to incentives. One hopes that both sides of the industry will see the advantage of a graduated wage scale that would give the new entrant something to look forward to as soon as he had the necessary qualifications. Even more important than this, I believe, in encouraging young workers to take up a career on the land, is a reasonable prospect for the beginner, for the man who is starting as a farm worker, to be able to get hold of a plot of land and farm on his own account. The best chance of this, under present conditions—of course, it is hopeless for a farm worker to imagine that he could ever afford to provide the working capital required for a farm—is the opportunity of renting a smallholding from a local authority. The demand for smallholdings, however, considerably exceeds the supply, and county councils have long waiting lists. I hope that the Government will look into the shortage of smallholdings and see what can be done to make them more easily available.
This growing disparity between the reward of the farm worker in the country and the town worker is only one of several factors in this exodus from the villages. Another is the lack of many of what we town dwellers regard as the basic requirements of a civilised life, which most of us are fortunate enough to have in our own homes. The younger villager choosing a career is bound to think of the sort of home he is likely to provide when he marries. It will be pointed out to him—and no doubt he will take the necessary steps to find out if it is not—that there are still something like 800,000 houses in this country, mainly in the villages, without a piped water supply; that many cottages, and even small farms, have no electricity for light or heating; that many others are ramshackle and wearing out, and need to be replaced by new buildings. The discouragement of new building by local authorities by the withdrawal of the subsidy for general housing needs, and the increased cost of borrowing, to which my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough rightly drew attention,

1025
could not have come at a worse moment. It will certainly not make living conditions in the countryside any better in future. I hope that the Government's restrictions on capital expenditure will not prevent the further electrification of farms, farm buildings and cottages.
I should be surprised, though pleasantly, if the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, were to tell us that the Government have a policy for stopping the drift from the land. There has certainly been no sign of it in recent years. This is just one aspect of the lack of a definite policy which is causing so much uncertainty in the agricultural industry. I do not believe that this lack of policy is a healthy tendency. The industry must continue to work in the closest possible partnership with the State. It shows that we have not yet found out how to strike a balance between the laissez faire (which nobody wants) of the years between the wars and the rigid State control (which we all want to avoid) that we had in war time. The proper relationship between the Government and the agricultural industry, under the normal economic conditions of peace time, which we are now experiencing and hope to experience for many years to come, is not something we can possibly know from our past experience; it is something we have to work out for ourselves in the next few years.
We are now entering an entirely new phase in the history of British agriculture. The common ground accepted by everyone is the broad principle of the guarantees in the 1947 Act. But differences between individuals and, what is more important, between the political Parties show up as soon as we ask haw these guarantees are to be implemented. There is no less divergence of opinion about the ways and means of improving the efficiency and prosperity of agriculture. Many of these opinions have been properly aired this afternoon, and they will, I hope, receive the serious consideration of the Government.
In view of these honest differences of I opinion, and the uncertainty they are bound to cause in the industry, this is surely the moment for an official inquiry, by the best experts we can find, into the basic, long-term requirements of agriculture. There are, of course, plenty of precedents for the appointment of a Royal Commission to make recommendations
1026
about one of our main industries. Your Lordships will remember the two Royal Commissions that sat on the coalmining industry between the wars. It is astonishing that there has been no official inquiry into the fundamentals of agriculture since the turn of the present century. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, said he wanted a Commission to advise the Government. That is exactly what I am asking for.
Whatever form such an inquiry might take—and it is for the Government to decide—it should clearly work within the framework of the 1947 Act. Its terms of reference should assume the broad outline of national policy as defined by the guarantees in the Act. What we want advice about, surely, is how best to fulfil these undertakings ender present economic conditions, and what the Government and the farming community should do to lower costs and improve efficiency. I give one or two outstanding examples. It is of paramount importance that we should know the permanent level of agricultural production which the country can afford now and can continue to afford. The Government, who have already changed their target from time to time, are now aiming at an increase of 60 per cent. above the level of pre-war output. I am sure I shall be pulled up if that is not so. My Party regard this as a somewhat conservative estimate, in the non-political sense of the epithet.
Everyone will agree that we cannot go on producing more food, regardless of cost. The normal level of production we now want to find, which nobody knows, will depend on the ability of farmers to lower their costs and use more skill, and on an appropriate measure of support from the State. It might be that a committee of inquiry would find that we can learn in this regard from other countries. For instance, it might well ask how Denmark, another pastoral country of small farmers, and therefore comparable with our own, can produce eggs, butter and milk at roughly half the price of farmers here, while paying higher wages to the farm workers. Perhaps such an inquiry would help us to overcome the disability presented by the very large number of small farms, usually of less than 100 acres in extent, which produce so large a proportion of our livestock and livestock products. It is into these broad basic matters that an inquiry would have to go if it were to produce something of really last-

1027
ing value from the point of view of agriculture.
Once we know the level of farm output, once we know the answer to that question, we can base ourselves firmly on an improved standard of efficiency, and we can estimate how large a labour force will be needed to sustain that standard. That will be a great advantage. Nobody can say at the moment what is the labour force required permanently for a reasonable level of output in agriculture. The noble Earl cannot answer that question, and I cannot think of anyone who can. It is a question that ought to be put and answered. If we knew exactly how much in quantity the land should produce, we should also be able to tell the farmers that we should need a certain quantity of each specific product, and we could tell them what the State would be willing to pay to maintain that level of output and that quantity of different farm products. This would provide the necessary data for what has been asked for by several noble Lords this afternoon, a long-term programme for agriculture, a programme to which every Party could subscribe. It is only a programme of this kind, a long-term programme which would not be altered in its essentials, that would remove the doubts and uncertainties that are in the minds of so many farmers at the present time.
Apart from the questions to which I have referred, arising from methods of production, an inquiry of this kind could deal with many unanswered questions in connection with the subsidies. I should like to mention one or two of these some of them have been mentioned already in the course of the debate. In the payment of guaranteed prices (this is a fresh point this afternoon) we have found no way of distinguishing between the high-cost marginal farmer and the farmer on good land who spends far less but gets the same return as a result of the guaranteed price. That is one question. Nobody has been able to answer it up to now. There may be no answer to it, but it ought to be looked into.
Another question that arose this afternoon on which opinions differ considerably—and the noble Lord expressed his own personal view about it—was whether we have struck the right balance, from the point of view of output, between production grants and guaranteed prices.
1028
One noble Lord opposite said that he thought we ought to spend more on production grants. That may be so. It may be the case that, by reducing the farmer's costs and increasing his earnings, we could save a lot in deficiency payments. We ought to know whether or not that is so. Concern has also been expressed—not this afternoon but I have heard it expressed on other occasions—as to whether the Annual Price Review is not in itself a cause of uncertainty. It might be better to review the guarantees at less frequent intervals than every year, with a provision for an emergency Review if we fail to stop the effects of inflation on prices.
These are all matters that are among the many fundamentals of policy that should be reconsidered, and reconsidered without delay. We need a long-term programme for agriculture, backed by an agreed measure of financial support and acceptable to all the political Parties. It is only a programme of this sort that will give both farmers and farm workers a renewed confidence in the future of the industry. That confidence is very largely lacking at the present time. I do not believe that it will be restored until we have the best advice we can get about the permanent pattern of British agriculture, and about the degree and the best method of its support by the State. A distinguished economist (not a person with any Party or other prejudice) wrote only the other day that the future of agriculture is in the balance. If nothing is done now, if there is no inquiry, if there is no desire for further positive action by the Government, the future of British agriculture will be decided by the present tendency of the Government to drift, to avoid difficult or unpopular decisions, and to leave the unfortunate farmers and farm workers to fend for themselves.
6.20 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as never fails to happen in a debate on agriculture in your Lordships' House, we have had many enlightening contributions to another full discussion on agricultural policy. I should first like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on his maiden speech, which, as such, I thought was a fine example and one that I hope we shall hear repeated often in the future. I only wish that I felt able to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, on the timeliness of his

1029
Motion. The House is, of course, naturally at liberty to discuss these matters at ally time it feels inclined; but I cannot help feeling that this debate would have been more useful and constructive, and there would certainly have been more to talk about, had it taken place after the Annual Review. As it is, naturally I am limited in what I can say about the industry's immediate prospects.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLS-BOROUGH: May I comment on that?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I quite appreciate the difficulty for Ministers; but what is the use of our criticising the present situation after the Annual Review? In the inflationary situation that exists, meetings are going on between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministers, who are all looking forward to a terrible Budget. Parliament ought to give views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the departmental Ministers, before a decision is reached. Why should we not do that?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: On that basis, I should have thought that this debate would have been better held immediately the House reassembled after Christmas, because the Review is in fact starting to-day, and it is therefore difficult to make any great changes as a result of anything that may have been said to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF, HILLS-BOROUGH: Unfortunately, the debates were hooked.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I have said, naturally there is very little new which l can tell the House, but I think that really there is little new that has been said this afternoon by noble Lords opposite. For a long time now the main theme of their criticism has been that our policy is causing uncertainty and anxiety. It is easy enough to say that, and, indeed, if one goes on repeating it often and loud enough, there is some chance that uncertainty and anxiety may be caused—but not by our policy. In the world of productive enterprise, of which agriculture is such a vital part, confidence in the future is always a delicately balanced thing, and nothing but harm is done if the balance is upset. The industry's output may suffer and cer-
1030
tainly the farmers' pockets will not benefit. It is very easy to do damage and very hard to repair it, and I must say that such concrete suggestions as are occasionally put forward by noble Lords opposite for removing this alleged uncertainty never fail to cause the gravest anxiety and uncertainty in my own mind, and I believe in the minds of many who have the interests of our agriculture at heart.
Most noble Lords opposite have suggested, in various terms, that the industry is suffering from the lack of a long-term policy. Our answer to that is that our policy is long-term and that the alternative policy supported by noble Lords opposite makes no better promise of stability in the future. Our policy is that there should be a free market so that the wishes of the consumer from time to time can be reflected in market prices, but we moderate the effect of these market prices on the producer through our system of guarantees: in other words, we give as much stability as can be got in conditions of freedom. But any policy, no matter how long-term, must in the last analysis depend for its success on confidence in the Government in power. Policies can be changed, and even Acts of Parliament can be repealed or amended. The most that any Government can do is to provide, as we have done, the right conditions in which the industry can prosper, and undertake to keep it prosperous. We have throughout developed our policy with this aim in mind and we have set out our intentions clearly year by year in the White Papers which have followed each Annual Review. We have, moreover, carried out those Reviews faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the rules laid down in the Agriculture Act, 1947.
But we do not want the industry to be run by the Government, nor do we want it lo be spoon-fed—and, in spite of what some noble Lords opposite may say, I am sure the farmers do not want that either. The Government's part is to go on providing reasonable guaranteed prices su7plemented by useful production grants, to pursue sound import policies and to help the industry to progress and increase its efficiency in every way possible by research and technical advice. I do not think that anyone has seriously suggested this afternoon that we have not done this in the past, and I suggest that there is no reason whatever for supposing

1031
that we will not go on supporting the industry. The firmest possible assurances on this point have been given again and again.
Broadly speaking, the alternative method which is put forward is, so far as I can understand it, that the Government should contract to buy the industry's output at fixed prices, or that the Government should instruct the industry on exactly what is should produce for years ahead. We do not think there is any sense in that in peace time. There is no point in producing what is not wanted, and the only truly effective way of finding out what is wanted and ensuring that it will be produced is to put the consumer in touch with the producer through the medium of a free market. I think we have demonstrated beyond any doubt that this can be done without risk to the industry's stability so long as the Government continues in the background to give as much stability as can be got in conditions of freedom and to protect the industry against excessive risks. On that basis, the industry can itself plan ahead.
I am afraid that there is not really time this afternoon for me to correct all the many wrong impressions which the noble Viscount gave in his opening speech. I can mention only two of the more important ones, as I see them. First, it is not true that we have been cutting the guaranteed prices against the background of rising costs. At the last Review we added no less than £28 million to the value of the guarantees, which represented an increase of nearly 10 per cent. on their net income. Secondly, it is not true that the output of the industry has been falling. Last year there was a small decrease owing to the exceptionally bad weather conditions, but the trend is now going steadily upwards.
Several noble Lords have voiced the feeling that farmers are not keen on being apparently so dependent on subsidies as such. They argue that bringing subsidies up for frequent review draws a disproportionate amount of attention to them in comparison with the help given to other industries in the form of tariffs which do not come up for review so often. I am sure we could all pick out particular industries which seem to have a high level of protection, just as in the agricultural world there are particular products
1032
on which the rate of subsidy is a good deal higher than on others. But, by and large, the protection we give our agriculture is no less than the counterpart of the protection which we give to our manufacturing industries. The essential point is that the way in which we are helping home agriculture is one which benefits consumers and the whole economy by interfering as little as possible with the free play of market forces in a competitive world. Also, the method which we use is adaptable to changed conditions, which makes it much easier for us to make adjustments to ensure, on the one hand, that the support is adequate, and, on the other, that it fits into our economy. For example, many farmers are worried about rises in the prices of things they have to buy. Although we must look to the industry itself to carry some part of this rise, through its own efficiency, we are in a much better position to help, where necessary, if we can adjust the level of support from time to time. Similarly, this flexibility is a safeguard for the taxpayer.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount opposite and my noble friend, Lord Ferrers, talked about pigs. Much has been made—and was made today—about the recent fluctuations in the market prices of pigs. I believe those attempts are made to try to show that our method of implementing the guarantees does not work.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: In fact, the market for pigs is about as good an example as one can get of the value of the guarantees and the sincerity of the Government's determination to go on backing up the industry. There is no escaping the fact that prices of pigs tend to fluctuate. They must do so, to some extent, if the consumer is to have freedom of choice. Sometimes it is the pork market which is strong, sometimes the bacon market. No human authority, be it a Government Department, commodity commission, marketing board or anything else, can possibly see far enough ahead.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: The farmer sees well enough ahead by his treatment of the matter—until the last few weeks severely reducing the number of sows, sows in-pig

1033
and gilts in-pig, by a very large percentage—because he has no confidence in the scheme as it is worked. That is common experience in my neighbourhood and must he in many others.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The noble Viscount is perfectly right: there has been some reduction in the number of sows and gilts in-pig. But at the last Price Review we said that we needed some reduction, and there we have it. We have not got more than we wanted and, as a noble Lord said, the tendency now is for the number of in-pig gilts to increase. The guarantee scheme is of particular value in demonstrating how the farmer benefits. Last year, for example, the market price for bacon pigs ranged from 26s. 4d. to 45s. 6d. per score, a swing of 19s. 2d. per score. On the other hand, producers returns only varied between 46s. 7d. and 55s. 3d. per score, a swing of 8s. 8d. a score. There was similar steadiness in the returns from the auction markets. Fluctuations nowadays are, in fact, smaller than in the regulated markets before the war. I am not suggesting that the guarantee arrangements are perfect. We are always on the lookout for ways in which they can be improved and have recently invited the National Farmers' Union to discuss improvements with us. The noble Viscount opposite produced what I understood were his own figures for production. He rather suggested that we might make an exchange of figures. That would be an excellent plan. If he will send me his, I shall be happy to send him mine; and if he can and more holes in mine than I can find in his, so much the better.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I shall be delighted to do so, but as this is a public debate and the Minister is answering I should like him to answer this question, for the benefit of farmers: does he think that in the present situation one can produce a bacon pig of good quality, round about 11-score live weight, for about £18 and show a real working profit to the farmer?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I most certainly can and do.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Then it is a great pity that the consumers are paying so much for bacon and pork. I cannot understand that.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My noble friend, Lord Ferrers, raised an old familiar cry about the profit which the middleman is making. Frankly, I cannot accept that. The argument always seems to be that people who buy from farmers tend to club together and offer low prices; and that the farmer does not mind because he gets the difference out of the Exchequer. That can be so only Where the buyers are sufficiently small in number to get together to do it. Our inquiries show that generally buyer; are competing very keenly among themselves for the produce of our farms. Nor have we been able to find any evidence that decontrol and the deficiency payment system have caused substantial increases in distributors' margins. Since decontrol, consumers have clearly demanded a much better service from distributors. This improvement naturally costs money, and we must expect to see that reflected in some increase in the traders' receipts. The noble Earl also mentioned the question of cheap credit and grants towards capital expenditure, and a 50 per cent. grant for water supplies. I was glad to have these constructive suggestions in a speech here to-day and will certainly bear those matters in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, suggested that it would be of benefit to agriculture, as well as to the consumer, if we were to insist that anything described as ice cream should, in fact, contain some cream. The rules governing this are contained in the Food Standards (Ice-Cream) Order, which is at present being reviewed by the Food Standards Committee. They will make recommendations not only about the minimum amount of fat but also about the nature of the fat which should be present in the ice cream.
The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, spoke about the importance of grass. I certainly agree with him that there is a great deal of scope for farmers in this country to make more and better use of the rich grass which is such a valuable national asset to us. He mentioned silage-making, and we are very conscious of the importance of this as one method, among several, of using our grassland resources to better advantage than at present. I do not think it is possible to make a direct calculation to show that a given increase in the amount of silage made would mean a reduction of so many hundredweights of imported feeding-stuffs. But, obviously,

1035
an increase in silage-making would be one of the best ways of reducing the farmers' dependence on bought-in feed.
The noble Lord also mentioned silage pits. He suggested that they ought to be subsidised; that the cost of a silo or of a roofed silage pit should be contributed to. I think, really, the cost of this is relatively small, and, on the face of it, I am inclined to believe that shortage of money is probably not the main deterrent to the making of more silage. But, certainly, if we should find that there is evidence that a grant of the kind which the noble Lord suggests would be effective, I am sure that my right honourable friend would be glad to consider the suggestion. The noble Lord also talked about a certain home-grown grass seed scheme which was instituted by the N.I.A.B.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am not sure that I know what that means.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The National Institute of Agricultural Botany. We support this scheme most wholeheartedly. It is undoubtedly an excellent thing for grassland farmers. But I do not know that it needs any more support than we are giving it at the moment. The noble, Earl, Lord Listowel, raised the question of the drift from the land, and I must say that I find myself in agreement with much that he said. It is a great pity that agricultural workers are continuing to find industrial employment more attractive. But I also feel that the picture is not one of completely unrelieved gloom. Although the agricultural returns for June, 1955, showed that the regular labour force had fallen significantly below the pre-war level; net output has continued to rise. There is, of course, strong competition from other industries, and farm labour is becoming more expensive. That is why the emphasis in the future must be more and more on better farm management and cutting labour costs. I believe that farmers are becoming increasingly aware of this need, and our farm management advisory officers are helping them considerably to meet it.
Unfortunately, we cannot calculate how much of the fall in the number of workers is due to the farmers' increasing ability to manage with less, and how much represents vacancies which farmers
1036
would fill if, in fact, they could. But there is no evidence that, except perhaps very locally, shortage of labour is holding up the advance in output. It is sometimes said that shortage of labour is responsible for the decline in the area of tillage—the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to that in his speech—but I do not think that this can be the only or even the main cause. I personally believe that the character of the land itself, and the tendency to revert to traditional methods of farming, are more important factors than reduced numbers of workers. Moreover, there does not seem to be any difficulty about part-time, casual and seasonal workers. The number of these in 1955 was 60 per cent, greater than in 1939, and only slightly smaller than in 1949. In 1954–55 there was actually an increase of some 12,000 in the number of casual labourers.
The noble Earl suggested that we should appoint a Royal Commission. I confess that I cannot see quite what use that would be. A Royal Commission could not determine policy. That surely must be a matter for Ministers in the Government of the day.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in case I did not make myself clear may I tell the noble Earl that I did not suggest that a Royal Commission should determine policy, but merely that it should advise about policy. That, as I am sure the noble Earl will agree, is something quite different.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am sorry; I rather misunderstood the noble Earl. I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl felt that a Commission could usefully inquire into the state of the industry.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, certainly.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The only thing I can say upon that is that that is precisely what we do at the Annual Review, and in doing it we use data provided by the universities, whose objectivity is, I should have thought, beyond question. And we conduct the Review in consultation with the people who, I should have thought, are in the best possible position to know the state of the industry—namely, the farmers themselves.
I do not anticipate that I have been able to convince the noble Viscount who introduced the Motion that the future of

1037
the industry is as secure and as sound as I believe it to be. But if he had waited a little longer with his Motion I might have been able to tell him in rather more detail what that future holds in store. When all is said and done, however, the Annual Review is a regular event to which we should by now be used, and it ought to be looked at in its proper setting. That setting, I suggest, is the long history of this great industry and its achievements through many difficult years. I hope that this Government's record over the past four years has shown clearly that we are conscious of those achievements and of the importance of the industry to the nation's wellbeing. We have given the industry our support in generous measure, and I say again that we intend to go on doing so. Noble Lords opposite will, I know, agree about the achievements and the importance; we differ only about the ways n which Government support should be given. I hope that I have managed to show that our ways have proved successful so far, and are based on sound and tried principles.
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the courtesy of his reply. He has some doubts about me; I have some doubts about his answers. But we remain friendly, because agriculture is of common interest to us all. The general impression the noble Earl gives me is that, while farmers themselves recognise that unless they can get something of a corporate character in marketing boards—that is, actual collective control of their markets—they cannot succeed, the Government, although they support the marketing board policy, take the line that only a "free-for-all" is likely to bring general prosperity to the industry and the nation. The two things do not go together. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I hope that the farmers' conference which took place a fortnight or more ago will have indicated to the Government something of the uncertainty and anxiety which I expressed in moving my Motion, because it is certainly there. The nice things the noble Earl has said about the results of the Government's policy did not seem to be reflected very much at that conference of representatives of the farming industry
1038
from all over the country. Nobody would be more pleased than I if the Government came out with a line of policy which would increase the success of the agricultural industry. I am very anxious that that should be so, but I do not believe that the Government are adopting the right policy to achieve that result.
Another thing I am most anxious about is that the agricultural industry should be put into its proper place in general Government policy for dealing with the most dangerous inflationary position. So far that does not yet seem to have been done. I am obliged for the courtesy of all noble Lords who have spoken, especially of noble Lords on the opposite Benches. At my age, it was most stimulating to hear such excellent speeches from three young noble Lords such as Lord Forbes. Lord Ferrers and Lord Bathurst. It speaks well for such a House as this, criticise it as I may from the constitutional point of view, that it can produce speakers who speak with so much attention to detail and such free and efficient explanation as these noble Lords do: they show themselves well qualified to help the general work of your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  IMMIGRANTS FROM WEST INDIES
  IMMIGRANTS FROM WEST INDIES
  NUCLEAR POWERED FLIGHT
  NUCLEAR POWERED FLIGHT